Startseite A modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion for solving the Cauchy problem of the Laplace equation
Artikel Open Access

A modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion for solving the Cauchy problem of the Laplace equation

  • Zhenyu Zhao EMAIL logo , Lei You und Zehong Meng
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 31. Dezember 2020

Abstract

In this paper, a Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation is considered. We develop a modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion to deal with the ill posed-ness of the problem. The regularization parameter is determined by a discrepancy principle. For various smoothness conditions, the solution process of the method is uniform and the convergence rate can be obtained self-adaptively. Numerical tests are also carried out to verify the effectiveness of the method.

MSC 2010: 65D15; 65N21; 65N35

1 Introduction

The Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation appears in many applications such as non-destructive testing [1,2], engineering problems in geophysics and seismology [3], bioelectric field problems [4,5], and cardiology [6]. In general, the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation is ill posed: the solution (if it exists) does not depend continuously on the boundary data, i.e., a small perturbation in the Cauchy data may lead to enormous error in its numerical approximation. Thus, some regularization techniques have to be introduced to obtain stable numerical solution.

Let 𝕃 2 ( ) , p ( ) be the usual Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces. and p denote their corresponding norms in 𝕃 2 ( ) and p ( ) , respectively. In this paper, the following Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation in a strip domain is considered [3,7,8,9,10]:

(1) u x x + u y y = 0 , < x < , 0 < y < 1 , u ( x , 0 ) = g ( x ) , < x < , u y ( x , 0 ) = 0 , < x < .

We need to determine u ( , y ) for 0 < y 1 from the noisy measurement data g δ ( x ) which satisfies

(2) g δ g δ ,

where δ > 0 represents a bound on the measurement error. We take the definition of the Fourier transforms of a function g to be

g ˆ ( ξ ) = F [ g ( x ) ] = 1 2 π e i x ξ g ( x ) d x .

By applying the Fourier transform technique, it is easy to deduce that the solution of (1) can be given by

(3) u ( x , y ) = F 1 g ˆ ( ξ ) cosh ( y | ξ | ) T y g ( x ) .

It is obvious that g ˆ ( ξ ) must decay rapidly as | ξ | . But for the Fourier transform of noisy data, such a decay cannot be expected. Some techniques have been developed for solving linear ill-posed inverse problems in partial differential equations: wavelet regularization method [3,9], mollification method [7,8], Fourier regularization method [10,11], dynamical regularization method [12], etc.

In [13], authors of this paper have proposed a truncated Hermite expansion method for problem (1). The method is effective but the a priori smoothness assumption on the exact data which is used to obtain convergence result is not natural. It is not easy to verify in practical application. In this paper, we focus on finding a new approach to overcome this limitation. Similar to [9,10], we assume for some p 0 , the following a priori bound exists

(4) u ( , 1 ) p E .

In fact, under conditions (2) and (4), we can obtain the stable solution of the problem by using the classical Tikhonov method: let f α δ be the minimizer of the Tikhonov functional

(5) T 1 1 f g δ 2 + α f p 2 ,

where α > 0 is the regularization parameter. Then

(6) u δ ( x , y ) = F 1 f ˆ α δ ( ξ ) cosh ( y | ξ | ) cosh ( | ξ | )

can be used as the approximation of u ( x , y ) . And if α is determined by

T 1 1 f α δ g δ = C δ

with C > 1 , then the convergence result can be obtained. The main problem with this procedure is that the value of p is usually unknown in practical applications. In this paper, we present a modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion. An improved functional without the value of p will be given and the convergence result can be obtained adaptively for various p.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We give the basic description of the method in Section 2. Error estimate can be found in Section 3 and we show some numerical tests to verify the effectiveness of the method in Section 4.

2 A modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion

Let H k ( x ) be the normalized Hermite function of degree k defined by the recursion

H 0 ( x ) π 1/4 exp ( (1/2) x 2 ) , H 1 ( x ) π 1/4 2 x exp ( (1/2) x 2 ) , H k + 1 ( x ) = 2 k + 1 x H k ( x ) k k + 1 H k 1 ( x ) , k 1 .

They satisfy the orthogonality relations

H k ( x ) H l ( x ) d x = 1 , if k = l , 0 , otherwise .

For any h 𝕃 2 ( ) , we may write

h ( x ) = k = 0 h k H k ( x ) ,

where

h k = h ( x ) H k ( x ) d x .

For any Fourier-Hermite coefficients vector h = ( h 0 , h 1 , , h n , ) T l 2 , we define the following operators:

(7) h ( x ) = k =0 h k H k ( x ) , h = 1 F 1 [ h ^ ( ξ ) cosh ( ξ ) , P N h = 1 F 1 [ h ^ ( ξ ) χ N ( ξ ) ,

where χ N is the characteristic function of the interval [ N , N ] .

Let K = T 1 1 , now we consider to solve the ill-posed operator equation

(8) K h = g δ .

To this end, for α > 0 , we denote by h α δ the minimizer of the modified functional

(9) K h g δ 2 + α h l 2 2 ,

where K = K . Then

h α δ = h α δ

will be chosen as the approximation solution of equation (8) and

(10) u α δ ( x , y ) = T y K h α δ ( x )

will be used as the approximation solution of (1).

It can be deduced that the minimizer h α δ can be obtained by solving the following equation:

(11) K K + α 2 h = K g δ .

Lemma 1

[14] If we let C = K 1 , the regularized solution f β δ defined by (11) possesses the representation

(12) h α δ = 1 r α ( C C ) C g δ w i t h r α ( β ) = 1 β + α .

In addition, the function r α : ( 0 , C 2 ] ( 0 , ) obey the properties

(13) sup β > 0 β 1 / 2 | r α ( β ) | 1 2 α , sup β > 0 β | r α ( β ) | 1

and

(14) sup β > 0 β 1 / 2 | 1 β r α ( β ) | α 2 , sup β > 0 | 1 β r α ( β ) | 1 .

3 Error estimate of regularization solution

Now we begin to derive the convergence result of the regularization solution. Let

f ( x ) = u ( x , 1 )

and f = ( f 0 , f 1 , , f n , ) T be its Fourier-Hermite coefficients vector. We take

(15) f N = P N f , f N = f N .

First, we give some auxiliary results.

Lemma 2

[15] Given the function f ( ρ ) : ( 0 , a ] described by

(16) f ( ρ ) = ρ b d ln 1 ρ c

with a constant c and positive constants a < 1 , b and d, then for the inverse function f 1 ( η ) we have

(17) f 1 ( ρ ) = ρ 1 b d b ln 1 ρ c b ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) , f o r ρ 0 .

Lemma 3

If f p E and f and f N are defined as (15), then we have

(18) f f N N p E ,

K f K f N 2 e N N p E ,

and

f N l 2 C N E ,

where

C N = max 1 , e N 2 N p .

Proof

By using Parseval’s formula, (7) and (3), we have

f f N 2 = ( I P N ) f l 2 2 = | ξ | > N | f ˆ | 2 d ξ N 2 p | ξ | > N ( 1 + ξ 2 ) p | f ˆ | 2 d ξ N 2 p ( 1 + ξ 2 ) p | f ˆ | 2 d ξ = N 2 p f p 2 ,

K f f N 2 = | ξ | > N cosh 2 ( ξ ) | f ˆ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ = | ξ | > N cosh 2 ( ξ ) | ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p f ˆ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ 4 e 2 N N 2 p | ξ | > N ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p f ˆ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ 4 e 2 N N 2 p f p 2 ,

and

f N l 2 2 = | ξ | N cosh 2 ( ξ ) | f ˆ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ = | ξ | N cosh 2 ( ξ ) ( 1 + ξ 2 ) p ( 1 + ξ 2 ) p | f ˆ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ max 1 , e 2 N 4 N 2 p f p 2 .

Lemma 4

Suppose that the vector sequence f δ = ( f 0 δ , f 1 δ , , f n δ , ) T satisfies

(19) K f δ k 1 δ , f α δ l 2 k 2 ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ p p δ , δ 0 ,

where k 1 , k 2 , k 3 are some fixed constants, then there exists a constant M > 0 such that

(20) f δ p M .

Proof

Let

(21) N 0 = ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ p ,

then by using the triangle inequality

f δ ( I P N 0 ) f δ + P N 0 f δ = I 1 + I 2 .

For the first term I 1 , we have

I 1 2 = | ξ | > N 0 ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ | ξ | > N 0 ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p cosh 2 ( ξ ) cosh ( ξ ) f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ ( N 0 + 1 ) 2 p cosh 2 ( N 0 ) | ξ | > N 0 cosh ( ξ ) f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ 4 N 0 2 e 2 ( N 0 1 ) f δ l 2 2 4 e 2 k 2 2 k 3 2 .

And the second term I 2 can be estimated as

I 2 2 = | ξ | N 0 ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ = | ξ | N 0 ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p cosh 2 ( | ξ | ) cosh 2 ( ξ ) f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ N 0 2 p e 2 N 0 | ξ | N 0 cosh 2 ( ξ ) f δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ N 0 2 p e 2 N 0 K f δ 2 = k 3 ln k 3 δ p ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ p p 0 .

These finish the proof.□

Lemma 5

Suppose that the function sequences r δ ( x ) satisfy

(22) r δ k 4 δ a n d T 1 r δ p k 5 , δ 0 ,

where k 4 , k 5 are two fixed constants, then we have

(23) T y r δ O 1 + ln 1 δ ln 1 δ + ln ln 1 δ p p δ 1 y ln 1 δ p y .

Proof

Let

(24) τ = ln 1 δ ln 1 δ p ,

then by using Parseval’s formula and the triangle inequality

(25) T y r δ = cosh ( y ξ ) r δ ^ ( ξ ) cosh ( y ξ ) r δ ^ ( ξ ) χ τ ( ξ ) + cosh ( y ξ ) r δ ^ ( ξ ) cosh ( y ξ ) r δ ^ ( ξ ) χ τ ( ξ ) = | ξ | τ cosh 2 ( y ξ ) | r δ ^ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ 1 / 2 + | ξ | > τ cosh 2 ( y ξ ) | r δ ^ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ 1 / 2 | ξ | τ cosh 2 ( y ξ ) | r δ ^ ( ξ ) | 2 d ξ 1 / 2 + | ξ | > τ cosh 2 ( y ξ ) ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p cosh 2 ( ξ ) ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) p cosh ( ξ ) r δ ^ ( ξ ) 2 d ξ 1 / 2 cosh ( y τ ) r δ + cosh ( y τ ) τ p cosh ( τ ) T 1 r δ p e y τ r δ + 2 τ p e ( y 1 ) τ T 1 r δ p .

Now the statement of the theorem can be obtained by (24) and (25).

The main result of this paper is given as follows:

Theorem 6

Suppose that conditions (2) and (4) hold, u α δ is defined by (10). If we choose the regularization parameter α as the solution of scalar equation

(26) K h α δ g δ = C δ

with C > 1 , then

u α δ ( , y ) u ( , y ) O δ 1 y ln 1 δ p y , 0 y 1 .

Proof

If f N , f N are defined by (15), due to (2), (26) and by using the triangle inequality

(27) K ( h α δ f N ) K h α δ g δ + g δ g + K ( f f N ) ( C + 1 ) δ + 2 e N N p E .

If we define f α , N = 1 r α ( C C ) C f N , then we have

(28) ( h α δ f α , N ) = r α ( C C ) C ( g δ K f N ) , ( f N f α , N ) = [ I r α ( C C ) C C ] f N .

Hence, in terms of the triangle inequality, (13), (18), and (28)

(29) ( h α δ f N ) l 2 ( h α δ f α , N ) l 2 + ( f N f α , N ) l 2 1 2 α g δ K f N + f N l 2 1 2 α ( δ + 2 e N N p E ) + C N E .

Let S α = I r α ( C C ) C C , note that g δ K h α δ = S α g δ , then from the triangle inequality, (14), and (18), we have

K h α δ g δ S α ( g δ g ) + S α ( g K f N ) + S α K f N δ + g K f N + S α C f N δ + 2 e N N p E + α 2 C N E .

Denote

ρ e N ,

then

N = ln 1 ρ

and (31) becomes

ρ ln 1 ρ p = C 1 4 δ ,

i.e., b = 1 , d = 1 , and c = p in (16). Then by using (17), we obtain

(30) ρ = C 1 4 δ ln 4 ( C 1 ) δ p ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) .

Taking the principal part of ρ given by (30) and if we choose N with

(31) e N N p E = C 1 4 δ ,

then we have

e N = C 1 4 δ ln 4 ( C 1 ) δ p

and

N = ln 4 ( C 1 ) δ ln 4 ( C 1 ) δ p ,

then there exist constants k 1 , k 2

K ( f α δ f N ) k 1 δ ,

( f α δ f N ) l 2 k 2 ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ ln k 3 δ p p δ .

Hence, by using Lemma 4, there exists a constant M

( f α δ f N ) p M .

So we can deduce that

(32) f α δ g = ( f α δ g N ) + g g N ( f α δ g N ) + g M + E .

From (2), (26), and by using the triangle inequality

(33) f α δ g f α δ g δ + g δ g ( C + 1 ) δ .

So the assertion is proved by (32), (33), and Lemma 5.□

4 Numerical tests

In this section, to examine the effectiveness of the proposed method, we present numerical results of some examples. The discretization knots are x i = B + i h , i = 0 , 1 , , m ; h = 2 B / m with m = 256 , where B is a positive constant and satisfies that g ( x ) approach zero as | x | > B . The perturbed discrete data are given by

(34) g δ = g + randn ( size ( g ) ) × δ 1 ,

where “randn( )” is a Matlab function which generates normally distributed random numbers. The following relative errors are used to estimate the computational error of approximate solution.

(35) ε y = 1 m i = 1 m | u α δ ( x i , y ) u ( x i , y ) | 2 1 m i = 1 m | u ( x i , y ) | 2 .

Example 1

This example is given by Fu and his coworkers in [10]. It is easy to see that the function

u ( x , y ) = e y 2 x 2 cos ( 2 x y )

is the exact solution of problem (1) with

g ( x ) = e x 2 .

From Table 1, it can be seen that when the noise level δ 1 is decreased from 0.1 to 0.0001, the relative errors will decrease too. All of these numerical results show that the proposed method is effective. The comparison of the exact solution of problem (1) and its approximation for different noise levels and different locations y are shown in Figure 1. Here, the solid curves represent the exact solution and the dotted curves indicate approximation solutions. It is easy to see that the numerical results become worse with the increase of y. This accords with our theoretical results.

Table 1

Relative errors ε y of Example 1

δ 1 α ε 0 ε 0.5 ε 1
1 × 10−1 8.23 × 10−03 8.11 × 10−2 1.34 × 10−1 3.13 × 10−1
1 × 10−2 6.16 × 10−5 1.02 × 10−2 2.33 × 10−2 9.3 × 10−2
1 × 10−3 2.18 × 10−3 1.20 × 10−3 3.58 × 10−3 2.28 × 10−2
1 × 10−4 2.42 × 10−4 1.36 × 10−4 5.66 × 10−4 7.10 × 10−3
Figure 1 
               The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 δ
                              
                              
                                 1
                              
                           
                           =
                           0.01
                        
                        {\delta }_{1}=0.01
                     
                   (Example 1). (a) 
                     
                        
                        
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        u(x,y)
                     
                  , (b) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)
                     
                  , and (c) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                           −
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)-u(x,y)
                     
                  .
Figure 1

The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for δ 1 = 0.01 (Example 1). (a) u ( x , y ) , (b) u α δ ( x , y ) , and (c) u α δ ( x , y ) u ( x , y ) .

In general, an explicit analytical solution to (1) is difficult to obtain, we set forth the example as follows: take a ψ ( x ) 𝕃 2 ( ) and solve the well-posed problem

(36) u x x + u y y = 0 , < x < + , 0 < y < 1 , u ( x , 1 ) = ψ ( x ) , < x < + , u y ( x , 0 ) = 0 , < x < + ,

to get an approximation for g ( x ) . Then put the noise to g ( x ) to get g δ .

Example 2

In this example, we take ψ as the following function:

ψ ( x ) = x + 4 , 4 x < 0 ; x + 4 , 0 x 4 .

Example 3

In this example, we take ψ as the following function:

ψ ( x ) = 5 , x < 0 ; 5 , x 0 .

Tables 2, 3 and Figures 2, 3 have given the results of Examples 2 and 3. All of the results show that the method is also effective.

5 Conclusion

A Hermite extension method with a modified Tikhonov regularization for the Cauchy problem of the Laplace equation has been presented in this paper. The numerical results show that the method works well and coincides with the theoretical results. The main advantage of this method is that the convergence rates of the method are self-adaptive. Moreover, we point out that the framework of Hermite extension method can be applied to other ill-posed problems.

Table 2

Relative errors ε y of Example 2

δ 1 α ε 0 ε 0.5 ε 1
1 × 10−1 6.13 × 10−1 6.87 × 10−2 7.17 × 10−2 9.09 × 10−2
1 × 10−2 1.14 × 10−1 6.83 × 10−3 1.11 × 10−2 3.60 × 10−2
1 × 10−3 1.42 × 10−4 6.75 × 10−4 2.24 × 10−3 1.77 × 10−2
1 × 10−4 1.86 × 10−7 6.74 × 10−5 4.83 × 10−4 9.59 × 10−3
Table 3

Relative errors ε y of Example 3

δ 1 α ε 0 ε 0.5 ε 1
1 × 10−1 4.44 × 10−2 2.26 × 10−2 3.66 × 10−2 1.74 × 10−1
1 × 10−2 3.19 × 10−4 2.30 × 10−3 9.23 × 10−3 1.28 × 10−1
1 × 10−3 1.42 × 10−7 2.28 × 10−4 2.40 × 10−3 1.04 × 10−1
1 × 10−4 4.16 × 10−11 2.30 × 10−5 6.65 × 10−4 8.97 × 10−2
Figure 2 
               The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 δ
                              
                              
                                 1
                              
                           
                           =
                           0.01
                        
                        {\delta }_{1}=0.01
                     
                   (Example 2). (a) 
                     
                        
                        
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        u(x,y)
                     
                  , (b) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)
                     
                  , and (c) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                           −
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)-u(x,y)
                     
                  .
Figure 2

The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for δ 1 = 0.01 (Example 2). (a) u ( x , y ) , (b) u α δ ( x , y ) , and (c) u α δ ( x , y ) u ( x , y ) .

Figure 3 
               The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 δ
                              
                              
                                 1
                              
                           
                           =
                           0.01
                        
                        {\delta }_{1}=0.01
                     
                   (Example 3). (a) 
                     
                        
                        
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        u(x,y)
                     
                  , (b) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)
                     
                  , and (c) 
                     
                        
                        
                           
                              
                                 u
                              
                              
                                 α
                              
                              
                                 δ
                              
                           
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                           −
                           u
                           (
                           x
                           ,
                           y
                           )
                        
                        {u}_{\alpha }^{\delta }(x,y)-u(x,y)
                     
                  .
Figure 3

The exact solution, the regularization solution and error for δ 1 = 0.01 (Example 3). (a) u ( x , y ) , (b) u α δ ( x , y ) , and (c) u α δ ( x , y ) u ( x , y ) .

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for valuable suggestions. The project was supported by the Fund of Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhanjiang, ZJW-2019-04) and the project of enhancing school with innovation of Guangdong ocean university (Q18306).

References

[1] Giovanni Alessandrini, Stable determination of a crack from boundary measurements, Proc. Math. Roy. Soc. Edinb.: Sec A Math 123 (1993), no. 3, 497–516.10.1017/S0308210500025853Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Alexander Bukhgeim, Jin Cheng, and Masahiro Yamamoto, Stability for an inverse boundary problem of determining a part of a boundary, Inverse Probl. 15 (1999), no. 4, 1021–1032.10.1088/0266-5611/15/4/312Suche in Google Scholar

[3] C. Vani and Ambal Avudainayagam, Regularized solution of the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation using Meyer wavelets, Math. Comput. Model. 36 (2002), no. 9, 1151–1159.10.1016/S0895-7177(02)00265-0Suche in Google Scholar

[4] Christopher R. Johnson, Computational and numerical methods for bioelectric field problems, Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 25 (1997), no. 1, 1–81.10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v25.i1.10Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Rongfang Gong, Bernd Hofmann, and Ye Zhang, A new class of accelerated regularization methods, with application to bioluminescence tomography, Inverse Probl. 36 (2020), 055013.10.1088/1361-6420/ab730bSuche in Google Scholar

[6] Colli Franzone and E. Magenes, On the inverse potential problem of electrocardiology, Calcolo 16 (1979), no. 4, 459–538.10.1007/BF02576643Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Dinh Nho Hào and Pham Minh Hien, Stability results for the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation in a strip, Inverse Probl. 19 (2003), no. 4, 833.10.1088/0266-5611/19/4/303Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Zhengping Li and Chuli Fu, A mollification method for a Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation, Appl. Math. Comput. 217 (2011), no. 22, 9209–9218.10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.160Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Chunyu Qiu and Chuli Fu, Wavelets and regularization of the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 338 (2008), no. 2, 1440–1447.10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.06.035Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Chuli Fu, Hefeng Li, Zhi Qian, and Xiangtuan Xiong, Fourier regularization method for solving a Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation, Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 16 (2008), no. 2, 159–169.10.1080/17415970701228246Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Chuli Fu, Yuanxiang Zhang, Hao Cheng, and Yunjie Ma, The a posteriori Fourier method for solving ill-posed problems, Inverse Probl. 28 (2012), no. 9, 095002.10.1088/0266-5611/28/9/095002Suche in Google Scholar

[12] Ye Zhang, Rongfang Gong, Xiaoliang Cheng, and Marten Gulliksson, A dynamical regularization algorithm for solving inverse source problems of elliptic partial differential equations, Inverse Probl. 34 (2018), 065001.10.1088/1361-6420/aaba85Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Ou Xie, Zehong Meng, Zhenyu Zhao, and Lei You, A truncation method based on Hermite functions expansion for a Cauchy problem of the Laplace equation (in Chinese), Acta Math. Sci. 37A (2017), no. 3, 457–468.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Thamban Nair, Sergei Pereverzev, and Ulrich Tautenhahn, Regularization in Hilbert scales under general smoothing conditions, Inverse Probl. 21 (2005), no. 6, 1851.10.1088/0266-5611/21/6/003Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Ulrich Tautenhahn, Optimality for ill-posed problems under general source conditions, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 19 (1998), no. 3–4, 377–398.10.1080/01630569808816834Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-08-25
Revised: 2020-11-01
Accepted: 2020-11-03
Published Online: 2020-12-31

© 2020 Zhenyu Zhao et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Non-occurrence of the Lavrentiev phenomenon for a class of convex nonautonomous Lagrangians
  3. Strong and weak convergence of Ishikawa iterations for best proximity pairs
  4. Curve and surface construction based on the generalized toric-Bernstein basis functions
  5. The non-negative spectrum of a digraph
  6. Bounds on F-index of tricyclic graphs with fixed pendant vertices
  7. Crank-Nicolson orthogonal spline collocation method combined with WSGI difference scheme for the two-dimensional time-fractional diffusion-wave equation
  8. Hardy’s inequalities and integral operators on Herz-Morrey spaces
  9. The 2-pebbling property of squares of paths and Graham’s conjecture
  10. Existence conditions for periodic solutions of second-order neutral delay differential equations with piecewise constant arguments
  11. Orthogonal polynomials for exponential weights x2α(1 – x2)2ρe–2Q(x) on [0, 1)
  12. Rough sets based on fuzzy ideals in distributive lattices
  13. On more general forms of proportional fractional operators
  14. The hyperbolic polygons of type (ϵ, n) and Möbius transformations
  15. Tripled best proximity point in complete metric spaces
  16. Metric completions, the Heine-Borel property, and approachability
  17. Functional identities on upper triangular matrix rings
  18. Uniqueness on entire functions and their nth order exact differences with two shared values
  19. The adaptive finite element method for the Steklov eigenvalue problem in inverse scattering
  20. Existence of a common solution to systems of integral equations via fixed point results
  21. Fixed point results for multivalued mappings of Ćirić type via F-contractions on quasi metric spaces
  22. Some inequalities on the spectral radius of nonnegative tensors
  23. Some results in cone metric spaces with applications in homotopy theory
  24. On the Malcev products of some classes of epigroups, I
  25. Self-injectivity of semigroup algebras
  26. Cauchy matrix and Liouville formula of quaternion impulsive dynamic equations on time scales
  27. On the symmetrized s-divergence
  28. On multivalued Suzuki-type θ-contractions and related applications
  29. Approximation operators based on preconcepts
  30. Two types of hypergeometric degenerate Cauchy numbers
  31. The molecular characterization of anisotropic Herz-type Hardy spaces with two variable exponents
  32. Discussions on the almost 𝒵-contraction
  33. On a predator-prey system interaction under fluctuating water level with nonselective harvesting
  34. On split involutive regular BiHom-Lie superalgebras
  35. Weighted CBMO estimates for commutators of matrix Hausdorff operator on the Heisenberg group
  36. Inverse Sturm-Liouville problem with analytical functions in the boundary condition
  37. The L-ordered L-semihypergroups
  38. Global structure of sign-changing solutions for discrete Dirichlet problems
  39. Analysis of F-contractions in function weighted metric spaces with an application
  40. On finite dual Cayley graphs
  41. Left and right inverse eigenpairs problem with a submatrix constraint for the generalized centrosymmetric matrix
  42. Controllability of fractional stochastic evolution equations with nonlocal conditions and noncompact semigroups
  43. Levinson-type inequalities via new Green functions and Montgomery identity
  44. The core inverse and constrained matrix approximation problem
  45. A pair of equations in unlike powers of primes and powers of 2
  46. Miscellaneous equalities for idempotent matrices with applications
  47. B-maximal commutators, commutators of B-singular integral operators and B-Riesz potentials on B-Morrey spaces
  48. Rate of convergence of uniform transport processes to a Brownian sheet
  49. Curves in the Lorentz-Minkowski plane with curvature depending on their position
  50. Sequential change-point detection in a multinomial logistic regression model
  51. Tiny zero-sum sequences over some special groups
  52. A boundedness result for Marcinkiewicz integral operator
  53. On a functional equation that has the quadratic-multiplicative property
  54. The spectrum generated by s-numbers and pre-quasi normed Orlicz-Cesáro mean sequence spaces
  55. Positive coincidence points for a class of nonlinear operators and their applications to matrix equations
  56. Asymptotic relations for the products of elements of some positive sequences
  57. Jordan {g,h}-derivations on triangular algebras
  58. A systolic inequality with remainder in the real projective plane
  59. A new characterization of L2(p2)
  60. Nonlinear boundary value problems for mixed-type fractional equations and Ulam-Hyers stability
  61. Asymptotic normality and mean consistency of LS estimators in the errors-in-variables model with dependent errors
  62. Some non-commuting solutions of the Yang-Baxter-like matrix equation
  63. General (p,q)-mixed projection bodies
  64. An extension of the method of brackets. Part 2
  65. A new approach in the context of ordered incomplete partial b-metric spaces
  66. Sharper existence and uniqueness results for solutions to fourth-order boundary value problems and elastic beam analysis
  67. Remark on subgroup intersection graph of finite abelian groups
  68. Detectable sensation of a stochastic smoking model
  69. Almost Kenmotsu 3-h-manifolds with transversely Killing-type Ricci operators
  70. Some inequalities for star duality of the radial Blaschke-Minkowski homomorphisms
  71. Results on nonlocal stochastic integro-differential equations driven by a fractional Brownian motion
  72. On surrounding quasi-contractions on non-triangular metric spaces
  73. SEMT valuation and strength of subdivided star of K 1,4
  74. Weak solutions and optimal controls of stochastic fractional reaction-diffusion systems
  75. Gradient estimates for a weighted nonlinear parabolic equation and applications
  76. On the equivalence of three-dimensional differential systems
  77. Free nonunitary Rota-Baxter family algebras and typed leaf-spaced decorated planar rooted forests
  78. The prime and maximal spectra and the reticulation of residuated lattices with applications to De Morgan residuated lattices
  79. Explicit determinantal formula for a class of banded matrices
  80. Dynamics of a diffusive delayed competition and cooperation system
  81. Error term of the mean value theorem for binary Egyptian fractions
  82. The integral part of a nonlinear form with a square, a cube and a biquadrate
  83. Meromorphic solutions of certain nonlinear difference equations
  84. Characterizations for the potential operators on Carleson curves in local generalized Morrey spaces
  85. Some integral curves with a new frame
  86. Meromorphic exact solutions of the (2 + 1)-dimensional generalized Calogero-Bogoyavlenskii-Schiff equation
  87. Towards a homological generalization of the direct summand theorem
  88. A standard form in (some) free fields: How to construct minimal linear representations
  89. On the determination of the number of positive and negative polynomial zeros and their isolation
  90. Perturbation of the one-dimensional time-independent Schrödinger equation with a rectangular potential barrier
  91. Simply connected topological spaces of weighted composition operators
  92. Generalized derivatives and optimization problems for n-dimensional fuzzy-number-valued functions
  93. A study of uniformities on the space of uniformly continuous mappings
  94. The strong nil-cleanness of semigroup rings
  95. On an equivalence between regular ordered Γ-semigroups and regular ordered semigroups
  96. Evolution of the first eigenvalue of the Laplace operator and the p-Laplace operator under a forced mean curvature flow
  97. Noetherian properties in composite generalized power series rings
  98. Inequalities for the generalized trigonometric and hyperbolic functions
  99. Blow-up analyses in nonlocal reaction diffusion equations with time-dependent coefficients under Neumann boundary conditions
  100. A new characterization of a proper type B semigroup
  101. Constructions of pseudorandom binary lattices using cyclotomic classes in finite fields
  102. Estimates of entropy numbers in probabilistic setting
  103. Ramsey numbers of partial order graphs (comparability graphs) and implications in ring theory
  104. S-shaped connected component of positive solutions for second-order discrete Neumann boundary value problems
  105. The logarithmic mean of two convex functionals
  106. A modified Tikhonov regularization method based on Hermite expansion for solving the Cauchy problem of the Laplace equation
  107. Approximation properties of tensor norms and operator ideals for Banach spaces
  108. A multi-power and multi-splitting inner-outer iteration for PageRank computation
  109. The edge-regular complete maps
  110. Ramanujan’s function k(τ)=r(τ)r2(2τ) and its modularity
  111. Finite groups with some weakly pronormal subgroups
  112. A new refinement of Jensen’s inequality with applications in information theory
  113. Skew-symmetric and essentially unitary operators via Berezin symbols
  114. The limit Riemann solutions to nonisentropic Chaplygin Euler equations
  115. On singularities of real algebraic sets and applications to kinematics
  116. Results on analytic functions defined by Laplace-Stieltjes transforms with perfect ϕ-type
  117. New (p, q)-estimates for different types of integral inequalities via (α, m)-convex mappings
  118. Boundary value problems of Hilfer-type fractional integro-differential equations and inclusions with nonlocal integro-multipoint boundary conditions
  119. Boundary layer analysis for a 2-D Keller-Segel model
  120. On some extensions of Gauss’ work and applications
  121. A study on strongly convex hyper S-subposets in hyper S-posets
  122. On the Gevrey ultradifferentiability of weak solutions of an abstract evolution equation with a scalar type spectral operator on the real axis
  123. Special Issue on Graph Theory (GWGT 2019), Part II
  124. On applications of bipartite graph associated with algebraic structures
  125. Further new results on strong resolving partitions for graphs
  126. The second out-neighborhood for local tournaments
  127. On the N-spectrum of oriented graphs
  128. The H-force sets of the graphs satisfying the condition of Ore’s theorem
  129. Bipartite graphs with close domination and k-domination numbers
  130. On the sandpile model of modified wheels II
  131. Connected even factors in k-tree
  132. On triangular matroids induced by n3-configurations
  133. The domination number of round digraphs
  134. Special Issue on Variational/Hemivariational Inequalities
  135. A new blow-up criterion for the Nabc family of Camassa-Holm type equation with both dissipation and dispersion
  136. On the finite approximate controllability for Hilfer fractional evolution systems with nonlocal conditions
  137. On the well-posedness of differential quasi-variational-hemivariational inequalities
  138. An efficient approach for the numerical solution of fifth-order KdV equations
  139. Generalized fractional integral inequalities of Hermite-Hadamard-type for a convex function
  140. Karush-Kuhn-Tucker optimality conditions for a class of robust optimization problems with an interval-valued objective function
  141. An equivalent quasinorm for the Lipschitz space of noncommutative martingales
  142. Optimal control of a viscous generalized θ-type dispersive equation with weak dissipation
  143. Special Issue on Problems, Methods and Applications of Nonlinear analysis
  144. Generalized Picone inequalities and their applications to (p,q)-Laplace equations
  145. Positive solutions for parametric (p(z),q(z))-equations
  146. Revisiting the sub- and super-solution method for the classical radial solutions of the mean curvature equation
  147. (p,Q) systems with critical singular exponential nonlinearities in the Heisenberg group
  148. Quasilinear Dirichlet problems with competing operators and convection
  149. Hyers-Ulam-Rassias stability of (m, n)-Jordan derivations
  150. Special Issue on Evolution Equations, Theory and Applications
  151. Instantaneous blow-up of solutions to the Cauchy problem for the fractional Khokhlov-Zabolotskaya equation
  152. Three classes of decomposable distributions
Heruntergeladen am 2.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/math-2020-0111/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen