| (44) |
where the vector
represents the irregular input data,
represents a regularly sampled model and
, in general, is any full or partial modeling
operator.
Given the nature of multi-channel recording and the design of 3D surveys,
it is expected that the number of
data traces is different from the number of model traces. Most commonly,
the number of observations is larger than the model parameters.
One way to solve such a system of inconsistent equations is
to look for a solution that minimizes the average error in the set of equations.
This minimization can be done in a least-squares sense where the
norm
is minimized. The choice of
that makes this error
a minimum gives the least-squares solution which can be expressed for
the over-determined case as
| (45) |
for which
represents a minimum length solution.
When solving the under-determined problem, this solution takes a different expression:
| (46) |
where
is the minimum energy model that satisfies the linear equations.
These solutions define a least square inverse or pseudo-inverse for the
operator
. From equation equ2, we write this inverse
in terms of
and its adjoint
as:
| (47) |
whereas in equ3 the inverse for the under-determined problem is:
| (48) |
Applying the pseudo-inverse of equ4 is equivalent to applying the
adjoint operator
followed by a spatial filtering of the model
space by the inverse of
. Therefore, I refer to this
inverse as model-space inverse.
In equation equ5 the adjoint operator is applied after the data have been
filtered with the inverse of
and, consequently,
I refer to this inverse as data-space inverse.