Data generated internal solutions for the plasma wave equation: error bounds and numerical experiments in two dimensions

In this paper we consider the computation of time domain wavefields in the interior of a medium that can be probed only from its boundary. The model is the plasma wave equation

on a bounded domain, with the potential $q$ unknown, and we ask how accurately the interior snapshots generated by boundary-localized sources can be recovered from boundary response measurements alone. The motivation comes from the inverse scattering problem of determining $q$ itself, which has an extensive literature, see for example [9, 23, 22, 8, 25]. We consider a closely related problem of recovering a Schrödinger potential from boundary data for multidimensional Schrodinger or plasma wave equations in overdetermined formulation, see [21] and references wherein. This overdetermined generalization of Marchenko-Gelfand-Levitan inverse spectral method, that was possibly introduced by Faddev in 1950s, treats operator-valued spectral data, corresponding to $2d-1$ data sets in $d$-dimensional problems. Algorithms with access to interior fields can sidestep much of the nonlinearity of the inverse coefficient problem, and some approaches construct an approximate interior solution as an intermediate step for exactly this reason [20].

A particular route to interior data is provided by data-driven reduced order models (ROMs). From evenly sampled boundary responses one can assemble, without knowing $q$, the exact Gramian of the unknown interior snapshots, and hence a small projected system consistent with the measurements; see [2] for the model reduction framework and [12, 4, 5, 6, 13] for inversion algorithms built on it. The step at the center of the present paper was first introduced in [3]: transforming known background snapshots by the Cholesky factors of the measured Gramian yields remarkably accurate approximations of the unknown interior fields. These data generated fields can then be inserted into the Lippmann–Schwinger integral equation to recover $q$ [14, 15, 16, 24, 7], and the quality of the resulting images is tied directly to their accuracy. Much of this literature treats settings with additional difficulties: variable wave speeds [5, 6, 13, 7], diffusion problems [1], and monostatic or partially nonreciprocal data [15, 16, 24]. Here, as in [11], we deliberately work in the simplest setting that exhibits the field reconstruction step, the plasma wave equation with a full multiple input/multiple output array and only the potential unknown, so that the accuracy of the internal solutions can be studied without these complications.

In [11], we isolated this internal solution generation step for the plasma wave equation and studied it as a stand-alone problem with exact data. There we showed that the data generated internal solutions are asymptotically close to the projection of the true solution onto the space of background snapshots, and we proved convergence in $L^{2}$ of order $\sqrt{\tau}$ in one dimension for two examples of initial waves. As discussed in [11], in higher dimensions a single input/single output (SISO) background subspace will not generally be rich enough for convergence, and a multiple input/multiple output (MIMO) formulation is necessary, with the number of boundary sources increasing as the time sampling is refined: the time samples resolve the fields in depth, and the sources resolve them laterally along the boundary. The purpose of the present paper is to formulate and test this MIMO reconstruction step in two dimensions, including for noisy data. In exact arithmetic the reconstruction is a change of coordinates between two snapshot systems. In computations, and especially with noisy data, the mass matrix may lose positive definiteness or become severely ill conditioned, so regularization is essential; regularized versions of this construction are known to be stable in practice [6, 1, 16].

In this work we state the formulation of the internal snapshot reconstruction for the time domain plasma wave equation, describe the block Gramian construction for multiple boundary sources and receivers, show that the general error bound of [11] relating the data generated solutions to the best causal approximation carries over to this setting, and compare two regularizations of the noisy Gramian: a diagonal shift, which is a Tikhonov type regularization [17], and an eigenvalue floor, related to the nearest positive semidefinite matrix [19]. The numerical experiments, performed with finite difference solvers, indicate that the eigenvalue floor stabilizes the reconstructions under response noise. We also present two dimensional refinement studies motivated by the one dimensional $\sqrt{\tau}$ convergence rate of [11], together with a heuristic best approximation discussion of the background snapshot family that is consistent with the observed rates. The considered formulation is overdetermined – we consider matrix-valued data corresponding to the $2d-1$ dimensional data sets in the $d$-dimensional continuous case. Our approach can be reduced to a non-overdetermined formulation, with only diagonals of the data matrix available in the framework of the data-completed Lippmann-Schwinger-Lanczos inversion algorithm [24].

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe the forward model and the boundary data. In section 3 we describe the mass matrix, its construction from the data, and the data generated internal solutions, including the block form needed for the MIMO setting. In section 4 we state and prove a general error bound of [11], which carries over to this setting and bounds the distance between the data generated solutions and the best causal approximation of the true solutions by the mismatch of their mass matrices. Section 5 contains the noisy data model and the two regularizations. In section 6 we show numerical experiments, and section 7 contains a discussion of limitations and future work.

Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $d=1$ or $2$, be a bounded domain with boundary $\partial\Omega$. We consider

where $q$ is the unknown plasma potential and $m=1,\ldots,n_{b}$ indexes the incident field. Here, as in [11], the source is implemented as a localized initial displacement near the boundary, with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. This produces the same algebraic data structure as a boundary source after discretization: source and receiver functions are localized near $\partial\Omega$, and the measured response is an inner product against receiver profiles. Dirichlet boundary conditions or initial velocity conditions could be implemented similarly.

For receiver profile $r_{\ell}$, source $g_{m}$, and sample times $t_{j}=j\tau$, define the response matrix samples

The background medium is denoted by $q_{0}$, here $q_{0}=0$, and its corresponding snapshots are $u^{0}_{m}(\cdot,t_{j})$. These background snapshots are computable since $q_{0}$ is known. The problem we consider in this manuscript is: given the response samples $\{F_{\ell m}(t_{j})\}$, reconstruct the internal snapshots $u_{m}(\cdot,t_{j})$ in the unknown medium.

Consider the true snapshots

An essential component of the construction is the Gramian, or mass matrix, of the snapshots. It is well known that the mass matrix can be obtained from the boundary data; this construction is quite general for linear problems [18]. For a SISO problem, $n_{b}=1$, and the cosine propagator identity gives

see [11] and the references therein. For multiple sources and receivers, the same identity is applied blockwise, see for example [7]. Define the block Gramian

Thus $M$ is obtained from measured response data alone. Likewise, the background mass matrix $M_{0}$ is obtained either by direct quadrature of the background snapshots or by the same response identity in the known background.

Let $U\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ be the matrix whose rows are the unknown snapshots $U_{j,m}$ sampled on the spatial grid, and let $U_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ contain the corresponding background snapshots. Here $N=n_{t}n_{b}$, where $n_{t}$ is the number of time samples, $n_{b}$ is the number of boundary sources, and $P$ is the number of spatial grid points. The rows are ordered time-major: row $i=jn_{b}+m$ holds the snapshot of source $m$ at time step $j$, so the time index is the outer, slower one, and the $n_{b}$ snapshots sharing a time step form a consecutive block. With $W$ the diagonal matrix of spatial quadrature weights, the mass matrices are

We remark on a notational difference from [11]. There the snapshots were treated as row vectors of functions in $L^{2}(\Omega)$ and inner products were written as integrals; here we work instead with vectors of point values on the spatial grid, and the weight matrix $W$ carries the integration, so that $UWU^{\top}$ is the quadrature approximation of the $L^{2}$ Gramian. The two formulations are equivalent up to quadrature error, and all statements below hold verbatim in the function setting with $W$ absorbed into the inner product. We prefer the discrete formulation here because it makes explicit each step of the algorithm: the mass matrix $M$ is assembled from the measured responses alone through (5), the background snapshots $U_{0}$ and the weights $W$ are computed from the known background medium, and the true snapshots $U$ never enter the reconstruction. They appear only in the analysis and in the evaluation of errors in the synthetic experiments.

The exact mass matrices are Gramians of the snapshot families and are therefore symmetric positive definite whenever the families are linearly independent, which we assume throughout. We compute their Cholesky decompositions

these decompositions were first used to solve the coefficient inverse problem in [12]. The data generated internal solutions used in this work are then

or, equivalently, the numerically stable triangular-solve form used in the code,

The reconstructed row $\mathbf{U}_{j,m}$ approximates $u_{m}(\cdot,j\tau)$ in the unknown medium.

The matrix $M$ has a natural block structure: each time-time entry is a $K\times K$ source/receiver block, where $K=n_{b}$. Therefore one could factor $M$ by block Cholesky, recursively forming and factoring the $K\times K$ Schur-complement pivots associated with each time step. As discussed in [11], the block Cholesky decomposition involves a choice of square root of the positive definite diagonal blocks, and is therefore not unique. In the computations reported here we just use the full Cholesky factorization of the regularized block matrix $M$, which is algebraically equivalent to choosing Cholesky as the square root in block Cholesky.

In this proposition, the approximation enters through the choice of the background snapshot family as a coordinate system for the unknown snapshots. In [11] it was shown that the error in the data generated solutions is controlled by the error in the best approximation of the true snapshots from this space of background snapshots, and that these errors become asymptotically close when the best approximation error is small. We state the corresponding bound for the present MIMO formulation in section 4.

The general error analysis of [11], developed there for the SISO problem, carries over to the MIMO formulation of section 3. As observed in section 7 of [11], once the scalar rather than block Cholesky factorization is used, the arguments are purely algebraic and hold in any spatial dimension; only the time-major ordering of the snapshot family enters. We do not reproduce the full set of results here, only the bound relating the data generated solutions to admissible approximations through their mass matrices.

For a snapshot family $V\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$, stored by rows as the families in (6), define

where $v_{i}$ are the rows of $V$. Here and in what follows, with a slight abuse of notation, $L^{2}(\Omega)$ norms and inner products of grid functions denote the discrete ones induced by the quadrature weights $W$. Following [11], we call an approximation $B\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times P}$ admissible if $B=SU_{0}$ for some lower triangular matrix $S\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ with positive diagonal entries. Here $S$ is the matrix of expansion coefficients of the rows of $B$ in the background snapshots: row $i$ of an admissible $B$ is $\sum_{k\leq i}S_{ik}(U_{0})_{k}$, a combination of background snapshots from the same or earlier positions in the time-major ordering, and the diagonal entry $S_{ii}$ is the coefficient of the background snapshot at position $i$ itself. In the column notation of [11], $S$ corresponds to the transpose of the upper triangular matrix $\tilde{T}$ there. The data generated family $\mathbf{U}=LL_{0}^{-1}U_{0}$ of (8) is itself admissible, with coefficient matrix $S=LL_{0}^{-1}$, the transpose of the matrix $T=L_{0}^{-\top}L^{\top}$ of [11]; as shown in the proof of Proposition 2 below, every admissible $B$ has coefficient matrix of this form, $S=\widehat{L}L_{0}^{-1}$, with $\widehat{L}$ the Cholesky factor of its own mass matrix.

Among admissible approximations there is a natural best one. For each row index $i$, let $P_{i}$ denote the $W$-weighted $L^{2}(\Omega)$ orthogonal projection onto $\operatorname{span}\{(U_{0})_{0},\ldots,(U_{0})_{i}\}$, the span of the background snapshots at the same or earlier positions, and define the family of sequential causal projections of the true snapshots,

where $U_{i}$ denotes row $i$ of the true family $U$ of (6). By construction $\widehat{U}=\widehat{S}U_{0}$ with $\widehat{S}$ lower triangular, and each row of $\widehat{U}$ is the closest element of its causal subspace, so if the diagonal entries of $\widehat{S}$ are positive, then $\widehat{U}$ is admissible and minimizes $\left\lVert U-B\right\rVert_{2}$ over the admissible set; we then call $\widehat{U}$ the best admissible approximation to $U$. Positivity of the diagonal entries is not automatic and depends on the choice of sources and sampling; conditions ensuring it for $\tau$ small are given in Lemma 1 at the end of this section.

We close this section with conditions ensuring that the sequential causal projections are admissible, implying that they are the best approximations referenced in Proposition 2. For this we need that the diagonal entries of $\widehat{S}$ are positive. Let $\{\bar{u}^{0}_{i}\}$ be the sequential orthonormalization, in the $L^{2}(\Omega)$ inner product and in the time-major ordering, of the background snapshots (the rows of $U_{0}$ in (6)), so that $(L_{0})_{ii}=\left\langle(U_{0})_{i},\bar{u}^{0}_{i}\right\rangle>0$. The pivot $(L_{0})_{ii}$ is the norm of the component of $(U_{0})_{i}$ orthogonal to the preceding background snapshots, that is, its $L^{2}(\Omega)$ distance to their span; it equals $\left\lVert(U_{0})_{i}\right\rVert_{L^{2}(\Omega)}$ when the background snapshots are orthogonal, and is smaller otherwise. The setting we have in mind is that of [11] and of section 6: we have a family of problems where the sources are approximate delta functions of parameter $\tau$, normalized in $L^{1}(\Omega)$ ($g_{m}\geq 0$, $\int_{\Omega}g_{m}\,dx=1$), with supports of diameter at most $2\tau$ contained near $\partial\Omega$ and disjoint from the support of $q$. The lemma itself, however, assumes only what its conclusion needs.

We model measured response data as

where $\eta_{\ell mj}$ are independent standard normal variables and

is the root mean square response amplitude, with $n_{t}$ the number of time samples as in section 3. The noisy mass matrix $M^{\delta}$ is assembled from $F^{\delta}$ using (5). Even if the continuum Gramian is positive, $M^{\delta}$ may be indefinite. A direct Cholesky factorization then fails, or, if repaired only by a tiny shift, may amplify the noise through the small eigenvalues; see [10] for a perturbation analysis of the Cholesky factorization.

The reconstruction algorithm with noise is:

1. 1.

   acquire or simulate response samples $F^{\delta}_{\ell m}(j\tau)$;

2. 2.

   optionally symmetrize $F^{\delta}_{\ell m}\leftarrow(F^{\delta}_{\ell m}+F^{\delta}_{m\ell})/2$;

3. 3.

   assemble $M^{\delta}$ from (5);

4. 4.

   replace $M^{\delta}$ by a positive regularized matrix $M^{\delta}_{\alpha}$;

5. 5.

   compute $\mathbf{U}_{\alpha}$ from (8) with $M^{\delta}_{\alpha}$.

We focus on two regularizations: a diagonal shift and an eigenvalue floor. The first method minimally shifts all modes; the second is a spectral repair that more selectively suppresses unstable modes. Truncation-based spectral regularizations of data-driven Gramians have been used previously in the inversion context, see [6, 1].

In this section we do numerical experiments where we test internal solution convergence empirically and consider noisy data. In our studies here, we test with several different media. The refinement studies of section 6.1 use a smooth Gaussian bump of amplitude $20$ and a discontinuous square ring of contrast $20$, both defined at the start of section 6.1. The examples of section 6.2 use high contrast composite media, built from a Gaussian bump of amplitude $120$ with discontinuous inclusions of height $90$. In all of the experiments we use a square domain $[0,1]^{2}$, homogeneous Neumann boundaries, localized radial tent source profiles near the boundary, and zero background $q_{0}=0$. The response data and the true reference field are generated on a nested fine grid with twice the spatial resolution and half the time step of the reconstruction grid, so that the measured data carry a discretization error different from that of the background solves and an inverse crime is avoided. The background snapshots are computed on the reconstruction grid, as they would be in practice. Both solvers use a fourth order spatial discretization. The response sampling rate and the grid rule differ between the refinement studies and the noise study, and are stated in the corresponding subsections.

The experiments demonstrate that one can compute internal wave fields from boundary response data without any knowledge of $q$. We see that multiple boundary sources are important in two dimensions: they enrich the snapshot space and make the block Gramian a more informative representation of interior propagation, as in the discussion of the MIMO setting in [11]. Setups with rigorous convergence rates have not been established, but the numerical evidence suggests that $L^{1}$ convergence is possible. We also show that the field reconstructions are not too sensitive to noise if one regularizes the Gramian with eigenvalue flooring. Eigenvalue flooring preserves the dominant data-supported subspace while suppressing the modes most affected by noise and discretization.

The media considered here have all had strong enough contrast that the scattered field remained well above the noise; we have not considered the low contrast regime, where the noise can easily exceed the perturbation signal and the background field itself becomes the better estimate. A regularization that detects this situation and reverts to the background solution automatically is the subject of future work.

The generation of internal fields from boundary data has the limitation that it reconstructs snapshots in the (causal) span of the background wavefields. For wave speed problems where the unknown coefficient produces fields that are not triangular, caustics, or other phenomena poorly represented by the background snapshot family, the reconstruction will be biased.

Future work also includes a rigorous convergence analysis of the MIMO formulation extending [11], including a best approximation analysis of the two dimensional background snapshot family and refinement rules with improved convergence scaling, and further use of the reconstructed internal fields in the Lippmann–Schwinger equation [14, 7] to recover the plasma coefficient $q$.

The authors used AI assistants (Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s ChatGPT) to help draft and edit the manuscript and to write and run the numerical experiment code under their direction. The authors have verified all results and take full responsibility for the content.

V. Druskin was partially supported by the AFOSR grant FA 955020-1-0079 and the NSF grant DMS-2110773. M. Zaslavsky was partially supported by AFOSR grant FA9550-20-1-0079. S. Moskow was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-2308200.

The complete code for the experiments in this paper is available at

https://github.com/sharimoskow/plasma-internal-solutions-2d

The implementation is self-contained Python with no external PDE libraries. All of the drivers below take the sampling rate, grid rule, solver order, pulse shape, medium, contrast, and regularization as options, so each experiment can be repeated under a different convention.

The refinement studies of section 6.1 are produced by study_best_approximation_tau_sweep.py (sampling at a quarter of the pulse width, fine-grid data, fourth order solvers, grid rule $h=\tau/40$), with the convergence figure of Figure 3, restricted to resolution-verified points, drawn by resolved_convergence_figs.py. The absolute $L^{1}$ comparison of Figure 4 is produced by hc_paper_sweep.py on the resolved grid $h=\tau/80$, which records the background, data generated and projection errors in both norms from the same runs, and is drawn by l1_absolute_paper_fig.py. The quantities entering the ratio $r(\tau)$ of Lemma 1, the background pivots and the scattered field norms, are computed by check_positivity_newconv.py (results in positivity_newconv.csv); the same quantities, together with the diagonal of $\widehat{S}$, are recorded by hc_paper_sweep.py.

For section 6.2, the strong scattering figure is produced by strong_contrast_fig.py, which takes the sampling rate as an option and was run at $\Delta t_{\mathrm{sample}}=\tau/2$ for Figure 6. The forward arrays for the noise study are generated once by make_noise_npz.py and replayed by noise_canonical_study.py, which performs no further wave solves: the noise realizations, the two regularizations, and the summary and gallery figures all follow from the stored responses. The floor sweep of Figure 9 is produced by floor_sweep.py from the same arrays. The repository README maps each figure to the exact commands.