Integration by way of Convolution

---

Mathematical Understanding of Regularized Inverse Convolution

The Mathematical Foundation of Regularized Inversion

When we have a signal \(y\) that results from the convolution of an unknown signal \(f\) with a known kernel \(g\):

\[y = f * g\]

In the frequency domain (using the Fourier transform), this becomes:

\[Y(\omega) = F(\omega) \cdot G(\omega)\]

Where \(Y\), \(F\), and \(G\) are the Fourier transforms of \(y\), \(f\), and \(g\) respectively.

Ideally, we could recover \(f\) by:

\[F(\omega) = \frac{Y(\omega)}{G(\omega)}\]

And then applying the inverse Fourier transform to get \(f\) in the time domain.

The Problem of Ill-Conditioning

The difficulty arises when \(G(\omega)\) approaches zero at certain frequencies. This occurs with many important kernels, including our [1, -2, 1] second derivative kernel.

For the second derivative kernel, the frequency response is approximately:

\[G(\omega) \approx -\omega^2\]

This means \(G(\omega)\) is very small near \(\omega = 0\) (the DC component and low frequencies). Division by these small values causes numerical instability, amplifying noise and errors.

Tikhonov Regularization

What we’re doing with epsilon is a form of Tikhonov regularization, which can be mathematically represented as:

\[F_{\epsilon}(\omega) = \frac{Y(\omega)}{G(\omega) + \epsilon}\]

This is equivalent to finding the solution to the minimization problem:

\[\min_f \|g * f - y\|^2 + \epsilon \|f\|^2\]

Where the first term measures how well our recovered signal explains the observed data, and the second term penalizes large values in the solution, providing stability.

Mathematical Properties of the Regularization

To understand what epsilon does mathematically, let’s analyze its effect at different frequencies:

1. Where \(|G(\omega)| \gg \epsilon\): \[F_{\epsilon}(\omega) \approx \frac{Y(\omega)}{G(\omega)} \approx F(\omega)\] The recovery is accurate at frequencies where the kernel has significant response.

2. Where \(|G(\omega)| \ll \epsilon\): \[F_{\epsilon}(\omega) \approx \frac{Y(\omega)}{\epsilon} \approx 0\] The recovery suppresses components at frequencies where the kernel has near-zero response.

3. Where \(|G(\omega)| \approx \epsilon\): \[F_{\epsilon}(\omega) \approx \frac{Y(\omega)}{2G(\omega)} \approx \frac{F(\omega)}{2}\] The recovery partially retrieves information, with some attenuation.

This creates a smooth transition between fully recovered frequencies and suppressed frequencies, avoiding the sharp discontinuities that would cause ringing artifacts.

Alternative Approaches to Signal Recovery

There are several alternative approaches for recovering a signal after convolution, especially for the case of integration following differentiation:

1. Direct Integration (for Differential Kernels)

Since our [1, -2, 1] kernel approximates the second derivative, integration is a natural inverse operation. We can recover an approximation to the original signal by integrating twice:

\[\hat{f}(t) = \iint y(t) \, dt\, dt + C_1 t + C_2\]

Where \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) are integration constants that need to be determined from boundary conditions or additional information.

For discrete signals, this becomes cumulative summation:

def double_integrate(signal):
    # First integration (cumulative sum)
    first_integral = np.cumsum(signal)
    # Second integration
    second_integral = np.cumsum(first_integral)
    return second_integral

The challenge is determining the correct integration constants, which represent the linear and constant components lost during differentiation.

2. Wiener Deconvolution

Wiener deconvolution incorporates knowledge about the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR):

\[F_{\text{Wiener}}(\omega) = \frac{G^*(\omega)}{|G(\omega)|^2 + \frac{1}{\text{SNR}(\omega)}} \cdot Y(\omega)\]

Where \(G^*(\omega)\) is the complex conjugate of \(G(\omega)\) and \(\text{SNR}(\omega)\) is the signal-to-noise ratio at each frequency.

This approach is more adaptive than simple regularization, as it adjusts the regularization based on the expected noise level at each frequency.

3. Iterative Methods

For very ill-conditioned problems, iterative methods like conjugate gradient or LSMR can be more stable:

\[f_{k+1} = f_k + \alpha_k(g^* * (y - g * f_k))\]

Where \(g^*\) is the adjoint (time-reversed) kernel and \(\alpha_k\) is a step size.

These methods gradually refine the solution, avoiding direct division in the frequency domain.

4. Wavelet-Based Deconvolution

Wavelets provide localization in both time and frequency, making them well-suited for deconvolution problems:

1. Transform the signal to the wavelet domain
2. Apply regularized inversion in the wavelet domain
3. Transform back to the time domain

This approach can better handle signals with localized features and non-stationary properties.

Specific Case: Integration After Differentiation

For your specific interest in performing integration after a differential kernel has been applied, let me explain the mathematical connection more explicitly.

If we have applied the second derivative kernel [1, -2, 1] to a signal \(f\), obtaining \(y\):

\[y[n] = f[n+1] - 2f[n] + f[n-1] \approx \frac{d^2f}{dt^2}\]

Then to recover \(f\), we need to integrate \(y\) twice. In the continuous domain, this would be:

\[f(t) = \iint y(t) \, dt\, dt + C_1 t + C_2\]

In the frequency domain, integration corresponds to division by \(j\omega\). So double integration is division by \((j\omega)^2 = -\omega^2\). The frequency response of our [1, -2, 1] kernel is approximately \(-\omega^2\), which means the ideal recovery filter would be \(\frac{1}{-\omega^2} = -\frac{1}{\omega^2}\).

This perfectly matches our regularized inverse:

\[F_{\epsilon}(\omega) = \frac{Y(\omega)}{-\omega^2 + \epsilon}\]

The regularization term \(\epsilon\) prevents division by zero at \(\omega = 0\), which corresponds to the integration constants we would need to determine in the time domain approach.

Practical Implementation for Integration Recovery

Let me outline a robust approach for your integration task:

1. Spectral Domain Method with Regularization

   def recover_by_integration_spectral(signal, kernel, epsilon=1e-6):
       n_fft = len(signal) + len(kernel) - 1
       padded_signal = F.pad(signal, (0, n_fft - len(signal)))
       padded_kernel = F.pad(kernel, (0, n_fft - len(kernel)))
   
       # FFT
       signal_fft = torch.fft.rfft(padded_signal)
       kernel_fft = torch.fft.rfft(padded_kernel)
   
       # Inverse filtering with regularization
       recovered_fft = signal_fft / (kernel_fft + epsilon)
   
       # IFFT
       recovered = torch.fft.irfft(recovered_fft)
   
       return recovered[:len(signal)]

2. Time Domain Integration with Boundary Correction

   def recover_by_double_integration(signal, boundary_values=None):
       # First integration
       first_integral = torch.cumsum(signal, dim=0)
   
       # Correct for linear drift (first integration constant)
       if boundary_values and 'start_slope' in boundary_values:
           first_integral = first_integral + boundary_values['start_slope'] * torch.arange(len(signal))
   
       # Second integration
       second_integral = torch.cumsum(first_integral, dim=0)
   
       # Correct for constant offset (second integration constant)
       if boundary_values and 'start_value' in boundary_values:
           second_integral = second_integral + boundary_values['start_value']
   
       return second_integral

3. Hybrid Approach

   For the most robust recovery, we can combine spectral and time domain methods:

   def hybrid_recovery(signal, kernel, epsilon=1e-6):
       # Spectral recovery for high frequencies
       spectral_recovery = recover_by_integration_spectral(signal, kernel, epsilon)
   
       # Time domain integration for low frequency components
       time_recovery = recover_by_double_integration(signal)
   
       # High-pass filter for spectral recovery
       high_freq = high_pass_filter(spectral_recovery)
   
       # Low-pass filter for time domain recovery
       low_freq = low_pass_filter(time_recovery)
   
       # Combine the two
       return high_freq + low_freq

Conclusion

The epsilon regularization parameter provides a mathematically sound approximation to the inverse problem, creating a balance between recovery fidelity and numerical stability. It’s essentially solving a regularized least-squares problem that finds the solution with the best trade-off between data fidelity and solution stability.

For the specific case of recovering a signal after applying a differential kernel, direct integration methods can be combined with spectral approaches for robust results. The key challenge is determining the integration constants (or equivalently, the low-frequency components) that were lost during differentiation.

The most effective approach often combines multiple methods, using the strengths of each to compensate for the weaknesses of others. This hybrid approach can provide more reliable signal recovery across a wide range of practical scenarios.