FIRST-ORDER SYSTEM LEAST SQUARES AND ELECTRICAL

IMPEDANCE TOMOGRAPHY

H. R. MACMILLAN

, T. A. MANTEUFFEL

, AND S. F. MCCORMICK

SIAM J. NUMER. ANAL. c 2004 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 461483
Abstract. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) belongs to a family of imaging methods
that employ boundary measurements to distinguish interior spatial variation of an electromagnetic
parameter. The associated inverse problem is notoriously ill-posed, due to diusive eects in the
quasi-static regime, when electrical impedance reduces to its real part, resistivity. The standard
approach to EIT is output least squares (OLS). For a set of applied normal boundary currents, one
minimizes the defect between the measured and computed boundary voltages associated, respec-
tively, with the exact impedance and its approximation. In minimizing a boundary functional, OLS
implicitly imposes the governing Poisson equation as an optimization constraint. To reconstruct re-
sistivity or, equivalently, conductivity, we introduce a new rst-order system least-squares (FOSLS)
formulation that incorporates the elliptic PDE as an interior functional in a global unconstrained
minimization scheme. We then establish equivalence of our functional to OLS and to an existing
interior least-squares functional due to Kohn and Vogelius [Comm. Pure Appl. Math, 37 (1984),
pp. 289298]. That the latter may be viewed as a special dual approach (FOSLL

) is an interest-
ing attribute of this equivalence. Because the FOSLS functional implicitly reects the inherent loss
of resolution away from the boundary, relative to the set of applied boundary tests, the need for
articial regularization may be avoided.
Key words. rst-order system least squares, electrical impedance tomography
AMS subject classications. 15A29, 65M32, 65M60
DOI. 10.1137/S0036142902412245
1. Introduction. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) belongs to a family
of imaging methods based on distinguishing interior spatial variation of an electromag-
netic parameter. The basic principle is to approximate this parameter in a manner
consistent with given pairings of boundary current and boundary voltage data. In
mathematical parlance, given boundary data represents discrete knowledge of the
Dirichlet-to-Neumann map associated with the unknown parameters eect on diu-
sion. The broad scope of EITs application, ranging from biomedical imaging [8, 10, 4]
to geophysical prospecting [34, 28, 37, 12] to industrial process tomography [31, 14, 15],
implies the importance of dierent parameter regimes and boundary data protocols.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect ecient and eective algorithms to be highly problem
specic, according to prior information and measurement techniques. In this paper,
we discuss the governing equations, the standard least-squares approach, and estab-
lished theoretical insights, but we do not conduct a comprehensive study of a myriad of
practical concerns. Our focus is, instead, on proving equivalence of three least-squares
formulations: output least squares [8], a formulation due to Kohn and Vogelius [23],
and a new rst-order system least-squares (FOSLS) formulation. That the Kohn and
Vogelius functional may be viewed as a rst-order system LL

(FOSLL

[6]) formula-
tion, combined with the equivalence results, suggests a unifying framework for future

Received by the editors July 24, 2002; accepted for publication (in revised form) September 8,
2003; published electronically March 11, 2004.
http://www.siam.org/journals/sinum/42-2/41224.html

School of Computational Science and Information Technology, Florida State University, 467 DSL,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4120 (macmilla@csit.fsu.edu). This authors research was supported by NSF
VIGRE grant DMS-9810751.

Department of Applied Mathematics, Campus Box 526, University of Colorado at Boulder,

Boulder, CA 80309-0526 (tmanteuf@colorado.edu, stevem@colorado.edu).
461
462 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
studies of EIT. It is our conviction that the ultimate goal of such studies is to quantify
the sense in which the notoriously ill-posed problem can be posed well. This is in line
with not only classical Backus and Gilbert theory on geophysical inverse problems [1]
but also with recent analysis of probabilistic approaches [26]. The equivalence results
of this paper, by establishing common ground, set the stage for investigations of the
uncertainty inherent in posing least-squares formulations of EIT.
1.1. Mathematical setting. The development of a mathematical model for
the EIT inverse problem begins with Maxwells equations in a source-free, closed,
and simply connected domain, which we denote with boundary . A series of
assumptions (see [8, 30] and the references therein), including negligible magnetic
permeability and quasi-static periodic time variation, leads to a Poisson equation for
complex-valued voltage p:
p = 0, (1.1)
where = + i is the admittance. EIT refers to the reconstruction of this pa-
rameter, since electrical impedance is dened as 1/. Here we make the electrostatic
assumption, = 0. Thus, the quantities in (1.1) are real-valued, and the aim is
reconstruction of the conductivity, , based on its associated Dirichlet and Neumann
boundary data. This is equivalent to reconstructing resistivity, 1/. The electrostatic
assumption is an important rst principle since the lack of resolution with quasi-static
elds, and thus EIT, is attributed to the conductivity term. Extension to electromag-
netic elds varying slowly in time remains a future work.
Remark 1. We refer to the process of reconstructing conductivity given Dirichlet
and Neumann data as electrical conductivity tomography (ECT) and remark that in
the literature it is also known as the DC resistivity problem, applied potential tomog-
raphy, electric current computed tomography, and electrical resistance tomography.
In what follows, we adopt the usual Sobolev spaces, L
2
() and H
1
(), including
the dual boundary spaces, H
1/2
() and H
1/2
() [11]. We assume that the boundary,
, is Lipschitz and note that the normal current ux is the scaled Neumann data,
n p, where n denotes the outward unit normal. Also, the boundary voltage
distribution is the Dirichlet data, p
|
. It is practical to impose the normal current and
measure the resulting voltage data, and we choose this perspective in the presentation
of our theory. Hence, considering the Neumann problem
p = 0 in ,
n p = h on , (1.2)
where the normal current h H
1/2
() satises
_

hds = 0, one may view coecient

as determining a Neumann-to-Dirichlet map, i.e., as determining the trace of voltage
p
|
H
1/2
() on the boundary (up to a constant). An alternative and likely more
realistic mathematical model uses Robin boundary conditions in place of the Dirichlet
conditions as the measured data [8, 40]. However, since the Neumann data is in each
case given, such measurements are equivalent to discrete knowledge of the Neumann-
to-Dirichlet map. At this stage we assume the most general Sobolev setting and defer
addressing practical issues regarding boundary data to a future work [25].
Several denitions associated with system (1.2) now follow to facilitate formally
stating the inverse problem of ECT.
FOSLS AND EIT 463
Definition 1.1. Denote L

+
() := L

() : > 0. Also, let

H
1/2
0
() :=
_
g H
1/2
() :
_

g d = 0
_
,
H
1/2
0
() :=
_
h H
1/2
() :
_

hd = 0
_
.
A given conductivity, L

+
(), induces a bounded linear map,

: H
1/2
0
() H
1/2
0
(),
from the imposed normal current to the resulting boundary voltage. This map is
dened by

(h) := p
|
,
where p solves (1.2), and we call

the Neumann-to-Dirichlet map (NtD map) as-

sociated with .
Remark 2. Function space L

+
() is used for admissible conductivity since it
is the least restrictive for which the NtD map associated with (1.2) can be dened.
However, uniquely dening the NtD map requires further restriction [17]. Regarding
the boundary spaces, a compatibility condition on (1.2) implies that we must have
_

h d = 0. Similarly, p is determined by (1.2) only up to a constant, so we are

permitted to impose the condition
_

g d = 0.
Definition 1.2. We say that p,

(h), h H
1
() H
1/2
0
() H
1/2
0
() is
a DirichletNeumann triple (DN triple) for if (1.2) holds. Also, we shall refer to

(h), h as a DN pair.
Remark 3. The NtD map,

, is self-adjoint in the L
2
-inner-product. This is
apparent since for DN triples p
1
,

(h
1
), h
1
and p
2
,

(h
2
), h
2
, integration by
parts leads to
h
1
,

(h
2
))
0,
=
_

p
1
p
2
dx =

(h
1
), h
2
)
0,
.
Finally, we have the notation to dene the inverse problem of ECT.
Definition 1.3. The inverse problem of ECT is to approximate the exact con-
ductivity,

, according to a given graph of measured DN data g

i
, h
i

L
i=1
, where
g
i

(h
i
).
Stated otherwise, the inverse problem of ECT is to approximately invert the
nonlinear mapping

. The approximate nature of this inversion is due to

the preimposed discreteness of having nite data, the inexactness of this data, and
the need to choose a discrete approximation space for conductivity. Next, we give
background on these issues as they aect our ability to solve the inverse problem.
1.2. Theoretical background. Classical discussion of existence and unique-
ness of the inverse problem is hindered by several concerns. First, assuming exact
boundary data is the same as assuming the existence of a conductivity consistent
with the boundary data. However, given the intrinsic error in the measurements of
the data, it is likely that there is no such consistent conductivity. As for unique-
ness, progressively rened results have been established, with a focus on achieving a
uniqueness result for piecewise continuous conductivity [21, 22, 35, 27, 17]. The tech-
niques used in theoretical uniqueness results, however, rely on complete and precise
464 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
boundary information and cannot accommodate the reality of only a nite number
of approximate DN pairs. As such, they do not provide insight into how inexact and
incomplete boundary data unleash error in that cannot be condently eliminated.
Toward such an understanding, it is instructive to consider Calderons initial analy-
sis [7]. Let L
1
() be a perturbation of a background conductivity, . For DN
triples p
i
,

(h
i
), h
i
and p
j
,

(h
j
), h
j
, he observes that
h
i
,
+
(h
j
)

(h
j
))
0,
=
_

p
i
p
j
dx + O(
2
). (1.3)
This classical expansion displays how perturbations in the interior can be practically
undetectable at the boundary. For example, observe that, with constant, the dis-
tribution of voltage, p, is increasingly smooth away from the boundary. Thus, the
product of the gradients of solutions to the Laplace equation places decreasing weight
on perturbations of conductivity according to distance into the interior. Notably, this
weighting appears within the FOSLS formulation when updating the approximate
conductivity.
In a now classical work, Backus and Gilbert [1] introduce the notion of inference
for studying a wide class of geophysical inverse problems, not just ECT. Parker [29]
has applied this theory to ECT, considering the linearized one-dimensional problem
of determining the conductive layers of stratied earth. Independently, Seagar, Yeo,
and Bates [32, 33] assess the visibility of circular disks of constant conductivity as
perturbations of a background constant conductivity in a two-dimensional circular
domain by using conformal mapping techniques. Finally, to determine whether the
eect of a certain error can be detected on the boundary, Isaacson [16] introduces
distinguishability. As is observed in each analysis of resolution, the best test to
apply in order to detect a specic error,

, is that which attains the operator

norm of the defect in the NtD maps, i.e., that which attains the sup in
|

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
:= sup
hH
1/2
0
()
|(

)h|
1/2,
|h|
1/2,
. (1.4)
Thus, given complete and exact boundary data, the natural functional to minimize
is the operator norm in (1.4). Of course, with nite data, the sup can be taken only
over a nite-dimensional subspace, spanh
i

L
i=1
H
1/2
0
(), where L is the number of
available DN data. Despite the preimposed discreteness of this data and its inevitable
error, we hope to still recover meaningful components of

.
1.3. Output least squares. In analogy to the Frobenius norm of matrix alge-
bra, a natural alternative to minimizing the sup over the span of the boundary data
is to minimize the output least-squares (OLS) functional,
T(; g
i
, h
i

L
i=1
) :=
L

i=1
|

(h
i
) g
i
|
2
1/2,
. (1.5)
This formulation is an example of unconstrained least-squares optimization and is the
standard approach throughout the wide range of EIT applications [3, 8, 12, 40]. It
should be noted that the L
2
-norm, rather than H
1/2
-norm, is typically enforced. How-
ever, in this work we preserve the most general Sobolev space setting. This top-down
approach should prove more benecial, as future work in computational electromag-
netics leads to a better understanding of the elds impinging a given domain, thereby
leading to a more accurate representation of the boundary data.
FOSLS AND EIT 465
To minimize T in (1.5), the rst variation of the NtD map with respect to
enables a standard Newton quadraticization. The rst-order term in (1.3) is used
to represent this variation, determining the eect on the boundary of changing a
given degree of freedom for . Once the linear system, involving the sensitivity
matrix, is solved to obtain a new approximation, the L forward problems are solved,
and the process is repeated (see [8] and the references therein). The physics at the
source of EITs diculty is manifested by the extremely high condition number of the
sensitivity matrix when a uniform grid for is chosen. This is consistent with what
the physics suggests: an increasingly coarse representation of conductivity should be
used to extend the grid into the interior. Typically, some form of regularization is
instead performed to ensure that the Hessian is suciently positive denite.
Regularization is, in essence, the process of posing an inverse problem well [36],
and it has taken several forms in application to EIT. A regularization operator, B,
can be incorporated into the OLS functional as an additional least-squares term so
that (1.5) is replaced by
T(; g
i
, h
i

L
i=1
) :=
_
L

i=1
|

(h
i
) g
i
|
2
0,
_
+ |B|
2
0,
, (1.6)
where is a regularization parameter that is usually chosen empirically to balance
resolution and computability in some sense. The most common regularization is a
penalty on the H
1
-seminorm of [8], wherein B = . When piecewise constant basis
functions are used in the discrete representation of , one can impose a penalty on the
jumps between each element [9]. Of course, the resulting reconstruction is articially
smoothed, especially near the boundary where one ought to be able to recover high
frequency components. However, the technique has been actively researched for many
years, and ways of reducing the articial smoothness have been developed, including
the recent multilevel approach of Borcea [3]. The theory we develop suggests that
the FOSLS formulation inherently imposes a smoothing of the conductivity estimate
that is relative to both the distance from the boundary and prior information about
. Indeed, the FOSLS formulation may likewise benet from an empirical process of
determining ideal weightings on each term in the functional, analogous to determining
in (1.6). These present potential directions for future research.
An alternative regularization scheme, referred to as a statistical or Bayesian ap-
proach, is implemented by Vauhkonen et al. [39] and Kaipio et al. [18, 19] to penalize
the orthogonal complement of an operator which represents prior information. The
penalty thus serves to steer the approximation toward an expected solution. A related
method, that of basis constraints [38], builds the subspace of admissible conductivity,
which may in practice be of very low dimension, by using basis functions selected
according to prior information. Though we encourage the use of basis constraints to
incorporate what is already known into the solution process, the prevailing conviction
is that such information should not serve to regularize the inverse problem. Rather,
one must accept and account for the inherent lack of resolution [1, 26, 13]. We feel
that FOSLS oers a natural foundation for projecting this conviction.
2. FOSLS framework. We now prove equivalence of the OLS formulation to
two interior least-squares functionals. To represent Dirichlet data, we write

(h)
instead of g to stress the present assumption on zero error in the data, as well as
the dependence on

. Finally, we develop the framework explicitly for two dimen-

sions and anticipate that the setting generalizes to three dimensions, although we
466 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
draw attention to those points in the development for which the three-dimensional
generalization is not obvious.
2.1. Kohn and Vogelius. The rst interior least-squares formulation we ad-
dress was introduced by Kohn and Vogelius [23] and Kohn and McKenney [20] and
is closely related to the original interior functional proposed for ECT by Wexler, Fry,
and Neumann [41]. We now review their formulation in two dimensions before proving
its equivalence to OLS.
2.1.1. Formulation. To begin, we recall the interior partial dierential equation
(PDE) and boundary conditions associated with the exact, albeit unknown, conduc-
tivity,

p = 0 in ,
n

p = h on ,
p =

(h) on .
Letting

= (
y
,
x
)
t
, and recalling that is simply connected, then the divergence-
free condition on

p asserted in this PDE implies the existence of s H

1
(),
depending on

, h, and , such that

p =

s.
On , we have
n

p = n

s = s = h,
where denotes the clockwise unit tangent vector. Note that s satises

s =
1

s = 0 in ,
s =
_

hd on .
To assess the validity of an approximate conductivity, the Kohn and Vogelius
(KV) functional is based on dening two separate sets of Dirichlet problems: given

(h
i
), h
i

L
i=1
, nd p
i
H
1
() such that
p
i
= 0 in ,
p
i
=

(h
i
) on , (2.1)
and nd s
i
H
1
() such that

s
i
= 0 in ,
s
i
=
_

h
i
d on . (2.2)
Now, if =

, then
|p
i

s
i
|
0,
= 0 i 1, 2, . . . , L. (2.3)
With a complete set of boundary data associated with

, the converse statement,

which conrms uniqueness, is also true: if (2.1)(2.3) are satised for every DN pair

(h), h, then =

.
FOSLS AND EIT 467
The statement in (2.3) suggests minimizing the functional
T
KV
(;

(h
i
), h
i

L
i=1
) :=
L

i=1
_
min
pi,si H
1
()
|
1/2
p
i

1/2

s
i
|
2
0,
_
, (2.4)
where, for each i = 1, 2, . . . , L, we dene
p
i|
:=

(h
i
),
s
i|
:=
_

h
i
d . (2.5)
The rescaling of conductivity used in (2.4) is chosen so that, for a xed approximation,
, the minimizations in (2.4) can be conducted separately. This fact is shown explicitly
in Lemma 2.2 below.
The scaling of conductivity used in (2.4) also benets the updating process for
conductivity. For a xed set of approximations, p
i
, s
i

L
i=1
, it is shown in [20] that the
best conductivity is determined pointwise to be
=
_
L

i=1
[

s
i
[
2
_
1/2
_
L

i=1
[ p
i
[
2
_
1/2
.
This sets up a natural minimization process of alternating between the subspace
for and those for p
i
, s
i

L
i=1
. Indeed, this alternating process is the design of the
proof of the equivalence result. In numerical studies of the KV functional in [20],
minimization in is incorporated explicitly, and, instead of the natural alternating
scheme, a Newton quadraticization is used.
2.1.2. Equivalence to OLS. Here we establish equivalence of the KV func-
tional to that of OLS. Because the line of proof follows for each DN pair, it is conve-
nient to denote
F(, p, s) := |
1/2
p
1/2

s|
0,
.
Also, we observe that, for any DN pair

(h), h, the exact conductivity generates

solutions p

and s

to (2.1) and (2.2), respectively, such that F(

, p

, s

) = 0. For
any arbitrary p , s H
1
() satisfying (2.5), we can interpret F(, p, s) as an expression
of error in each variable. Thus, letting H
1
0
() := q H
1
() : q = 0 on , it is
useful to dene
p := p p

H
1
0
(),
s := s s

H
1
0
().
Note that since p and s are zero on the boundary, we preserve the boundary values
of p

and s

, as required by the functional, and we can rewrite (2.4) subject to (2.5)

as
T
KV
(;

(h
i
), h
i

L
i=1
) =
L

i=1
_
min
pi,si H
1
0
()
F(, p

i
+ p
i
, s

i
+ s
i
)
_
. (2.6)
The equivalence relation we seek, Corollary 2.3 below, follows from a generalized
ellipticity property for functional term F(, p

+p, s

+s). As already mentioned, this

468 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
property of the functional is established in Lemma 2.2. Essentially, in the following
theorem we establish that F(, p

+p, s

+s) is equivalent to an expression of specic

quantities

(h)

(h), p p
D
, and s s
D
, where
p
D
:= arg min
p H
1
0
()
|
1/2
(p

+ p)|
0,
,
s
D
:= arg min
s H
1
0
()
|
1/2

(s

+ s)|
0,
(2.7)
come from the minimizations in (2.6). Hence by design, proceeding to conduct the
minimizations in (2.6) leads to lower and upper bounds for T
KV
(;

(h
i
), h
i

L
i=1
)
in terms of the defect in the NtD map.
Theorem 2.1. Suppose that L

+
() satises =

on . Suppose also
that s

H
1
() is such that F(

, p

, s

) = 0 for DN triple p

(h), h associated
with

, where h H
1/2
0
(). Finally, let p
D
and s
D
be as dened in (2.7). Then
there exist positive constants c
0
and c
1
such that
c
0
|(

)h|
2
1/2,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s)
c
1
|(

)h|
2
1/2,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
, (2.8)
where c
0
depends on and min

[[, c
1
= |
1

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, and each multiply
only the rst terms.
Proof. The optimality of p
D
and s
D
, characterized in (2.7), leads to the orthog-
onality conditions
(p

+ p
D
), p)
0,
= 0 p H
1
0
(),

(s

+ s
D
),

s)
0,
= 0 s H
1
0
().
(2.9)
Note that the Neumann data for p
D
and s
D
are generally not zero and that, in
preserving the Dirichlet data, the strong form of the rst equation in (2.9) means
that p

+p
D
,

(h), h is a DN triple. Now we expand the terms of the functional,

use (2.9), and note that all but one cross term vanishes upon integrating by parts:
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s)
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
+ p p
D
)
1/2

(s

+ s
D
+ s s
D
)|
2
0,
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
2p

)
0,
+|
1/2

(s

+ s
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
. (2.10)
By assumption,

, so we may split the lone cross term in (2.10) to write

F(, p

+ p, s

+ s) = |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
|
1/2
p

|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s

+ s
D
)|
2
0,
|
1/2

|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
. (2.11)
With the last two terms as desired, consider the other four. The second equation in
(2.9) implies that
1

(s

+s
D
) is equal to a grad. Thus, there exists a p
N
H
1
()
such that
(p

+ p
N
) =

(s

+ s
D
).
FOSLS AND EIT 469
Together with the Dirichlet data for s = s

+ s
D
in (2.5), we have
n (p

+ p
N
) = n

(s

+ s
D
) = h. (2.12)
In other words, we may think of p

+p
N
,

(h), h as a DN triple for . This allows

us to write (2.11) as
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s) = |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
|
1/2
p

|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p

+ p
N
)|
2
0,
|
1/2
p

|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
. (2.13)
Next, integration by parts yields the following relations:

(h), h)
0,
= |
1/2
p

|
2
0,
,

(h), h)
0,
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
N
)|
2
0,
,

(h)),

(h)
_
0,
= |
1/2
p

|
2
0,
,

(h)),

(h)
_
0,
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
. (2.14)
Thus, (2.13) becomes
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s) =

(
1

(h),

(h)
_
0,
+(

)(h), h)
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
. (2.15)
Since

and

are self-adjoint, we may combine the rst two terms:

(
1

(h),

(h)
_
0,
+(

)(h), h)
0,
=

)(h), h
_
0,
=

)
1

)(h), h
_
0,
=

)(h), (

)(h)
_
0,
. (2.16)
Also, since

)(h), (

)h)
0,
|
1

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
|(

)(h)|
2
1/2,
,
we may combine (2.15) and (2.16) to arrive at the desired upper bound:
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s) |
1

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
|

(h)

(h)|
2
1/2,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
.
To achieve the lower bound, we recall (2.7) and observe that
(

)(h) = p
N|
H
1/2
0
()
by denition of p
N
. Hence, we may now consider the p H
1
() that solves
p = 0 in ,
p = p
N
on .
470 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
Appealing to (2.14) and the trace theorem [11], we have

)(h), (

)(h))
0,
= |
1/2
p|
2
0,
c | p|
2
0,
c
0
|p
N
|
2
1/2,
= c
0
|(

)(h)|
2
1/2,
, (2.17)
where c
0
depends on the smoothness of the boundary and min

[[. Finally, incorpo-

rating (2.17) with (2.16) into (2.6) establishes the lower bound:
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s) c
0
|(

)(h)|
2
1/2,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
.
To make use of the above equivalence, we establish the following lemma using the
constructs of the theorem to reassert the ability to minimize the functional in (2.4)
for s
i
and p
i
separately.
Lemma 2.2. Suppose that =

on . Also, for each h H

1/2
0
(), let p

(h), h be a DN triple for

and dene
p
D
:= arg min
p H
1
0
()
|
1/2
(p

+ p)|
0,
,
s
D
:= arg min
s H
1
0
()
|
1/2

(s

+ s)|
0,
. (2.18)
Then
F(, p

+ p
D
, s

+ s
D
) = min
p,s H
1
0
()
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s). (2.19)
Proof. From (2.10) and the boundary data for p

and s

, we have
F(, p

+ p, s

+ s)
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
2p

)
0,
+|
1/2

(s

+ s
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
= |
1/2
(p

+ p
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2
(p p
D
)|
2
0,
2

(h), h)
0,
+|
1/2

(s

+ s
D
)|
2
0,
+|
1/2

(s s
D
)|
2
0,
.
The conclusion is apparent since the boundary term is a known xed quantity.
A direct result of this lemma and Theorem 2.1 is the following corollary.
Corollary 2.3. For any h H
1/2
0
(), there exist positive constants c
0
and c
1
such that
c
0
|

(h)

(h)|
2
1/2,
min
p,s H
1
()
|
1/2
p
1/2

s|
2
0,
c
1
|

(h)

(h)|
2
1/2,
, (2.20)
where c
0
depends on and min

[[, c
1
= |
1

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, and where p and
s are subject to the boundary data in (2.5).
FOSLS AND EIT 471
It is also clear from Lemma 2.2, as a generalization of the above corollary, that
the KV formulation is equivalent to the OLS formulation. We state this formally in
the following corollary.
Corollary 2.4. With T
KV
dened in (2.4) subject to (2.5), there exist positive
constants c
0
and c
1
such that
c
0
L

i=1
|

(h
i
)

(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
T
KV
(;

(h
i
), h
i

L
i=1
)
c
1
L

i=1
|

(h
i
)

(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
, (2.21)
where c
1
= |
1

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
and c
0
depends on and min

[[.
Remark 4. As a nal remark, consider (2.20) under the assumption of complete
knowledge of the NtD map. Taking the sup over all h H
1/2
0
() of each quantity
and scaling appropriately then leads to the idealized equivalence result:
c
0
|

|
2
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
sup
hH
1/2
0
()
_
min
p,s H
1
()
|
1/2
p
1/2

s|
2
0,
_
|h|
1/2,
c
1
|

|
2
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
,
where, again, p and s are subject to the boundary data in (2.5) for a given h. This
suggests a sup version, rather than least-squares version, of the KV functional that is
equivalent to the operator norm of the defect in the NtD maps.
2.2. FOSLS. We now present a FOSLS formulation for ECT. The rst-order
system we use may be viewed as a rescaled version of the Maxwell equations. We
will show that the FOSLS formulation not only provides the ability to solve forward
problems eciently but also yields an insightful process for updating the approximate
conductivity. Again, the result is a natural alternating minimization scheme. We
present the FOSLS formulation and provide an equivalence result akin to that of the
previous section.
2.2.1. Formulation. To derive the FOSLS formulation for ECT, dene q :=
1
2
log() so that e
2q
:= . This is natural thing to do for deeper reasons than the
positivity of conductivity, since the reciprocal of conductivity, resistivity, is also of
interest. It is therefore seemingly arbitrary whether one considers an error in conduc-
tivity,

, or the associated error in resistivity, 1/ 1/

. However, by dening
error in terms of q, such an inconsistency is avoided since
[q q

[ =
1
2

log
_

=
1
2

log
_
1/
1/

. (2.22)
Proceeding with the formulation, we now let u := e
q
p. Then, with p,

(h), h
a DN triple for , u solves the rst-order system
e
q
e
q
u = 0 in ,
e
q
e
q
u = 0 in ,
n e
q
u = h on . (2.23)
472 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
We may think of (2.23) as determining the tangential current
n e
q
u = (n )

(h) (H
1/2
0
())
n1
.
When n = 2, we write () in lieu of (n). Practically speaking, deriving tangential
current data from voltage data is problematic at best, since simply dierentiating
noisy data is an unstable process. Though there may be future innovations that
enable direct assessment of tangential current, we defer discussion of this important
matter to future research.
We now make our rst denition regarding the FOSLS formulation.
Definition 2.5. First-order system (2.23) denes the normal-to-tangential cur-
rent map (NtT map), T
q
: H
1/2
0
() (H
1/2
0
())
n1
, where
T
q
(h) = n e
q
u = (n )

(h).
We also dene the following variations on H(div, ) and H(curl, ).
Definition 2.6. For q L

(), let W
q
= H(div e
q
, ) H(curl e
q
, ), where
H(div e
q
, ) = u (L
2
())
n
: e
q
u L
2
() ,
H(curl e
q
, ) =
_
u (L
2
())
n
: e
q
u (L
2
())
2n3
_
,
for n = 2, 3.
Finally, it is convenient to introduce an analogy to the DN-triple notation.
Definition 2.7. In the FOSLS setting, if u solves (2.23) with boundary data h,
then we refer to u, h, T
q
(h) as a normal-tangential triple (NT triple) for q and to
h, T
q
(h) as an NT pair.
Given the boundary data, h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)
L
i=1
, associated with an unknown q

, we
approximate q

by minimizing the FOSLS functional

T
OSLS
(q; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)
L
i=1
) =
L

i=1
_
min
ui Wq
F(q, u
i
; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
))
_
, (2.24)
where
F(q, u
i
; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)) := |e
q
e
q
u
i
|
2
0,
+|e
q
e
q
u
i
|
2
0,
+|n e
q
u
i
h
i
|
2
1/2,
+|n e
q
u
i
T
q
(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
. (2.25)
To minimize T
OSLS
, rst note that, for a xed approximation, q, each u
i
can be
numerically approximated with optimal eciency [5]. Furthermore, if we assume
q H
1
() and u W
0
= H(div, ) H(curl, ), then for xed u
i
(H
1
())
n
, with
i = 1, . . . , L, we also have an elliptic problem to improve approximation q H
1
().
Taking the rst variation in q of T
OSLS
for a xed set, u
i
(H
1
())
2

L
i=1
, reveals
that the best q H
1
() satises the weak form
Aq, r)
0,
= f(r) r H
1
(), (2.26)
where
A = 2
L

i=1
[u
i
[
2
(2.27)
FOSLS AND EIT 473
and f H
1
(), for n = 2 for example, is given by
f, r)
0,
=
L

i=1
_
u
i
, r u
i
)
0,
+u
i
,

r u
i
)
0,
_
,
using () in lieu of (n) and (

) in lieu of ().
These properties suggest that we can employ an alternating subspace minimiza-
tion scheme. Furthermore, it is remarkable that the minimization associated with the
weak form in (2.26) incorporates inner products of interior current as a weighting on
the components of q, just as it appears in Calderdons linearization. Thus, the FOSLS
functional appears to reduce error in q according to naturally weighted H
1
-seminorms.
Note that prior information about

, manifested as an improved approximation ,

is reected in this weighting. Because requiring q H
1
() is quite restrictive, the
OLS or KV approach may be better suited for many applications. However, given the
above insights, the role of FOSLS as a framework for EIT is compelling.
2.2.2. Equivalence to OLS. As with the KV functional, we demonstrate equiv-
alence for n = 2. To show that the FOSLS functional in (2.24) is equivalent to OLS, we
rst establish several lemmas and some useful notation. In the rst lemma, we relate
T
q
to

in two dimensions. Generalization of this lemma to the three-dimensional

problem is not obvious, and not addressed in this study. In three dimesions, compli-
cations arise since T
q
is then a 2-vector, whereas

(h) remains a scalar quantity.

However, the increased dimensionality of the data in three dimensions can be expected
to improve the quality of the reconstruction.
Lemma 2.8. Let =

on and n = 2. Then
|T
q
T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
= |

|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
. (2.28)
Proof. We wish to show that
sup
hH
1/2
0
()
|(T
q
T
q
)(h)|
1/2,
|h|
1/2,
= sup
hH
1/2
0
()
|(

)(h)|
1/2,
|h|
1/2,
.
Since (T
q
T
q
)(h) = ( )(

)(h), it suces to show that

|(

)(h)|
1/2,
= |( )(

)(h)|
1/2,
.
Noting that there is a g H
1/2
() such that g = (

)h, then this reduces to

|g|
1/2,
=
_
_
_
_
dg
d
_
_
_
_
1/2,
. (2.29)
We now show that this holds for any g H
1/2
0
() by appealing to the representation of
the H
1/2
- and H
1/2
-norms using the Fourier transform. Dening g() as the transform
of g, we have [24]
|g|
1/2,
= |
1/2
g|
0,
,
|h|
1/2,
= |
1/2

h|
0,
.
Hence, (2.29) follows from
|g|
1/2,
= |
1/2
g|
0,
= |
1/2
g|
0,
= |
1/2
g

|
0,
=
_
_
_
_
dg
d
_
_
_
_
1/2,
.
474 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
Remark 5. An alternative proof may be preferable in which (2.29) is derived by
interpolating from an analogous statement of integer index.
It is convenient to isolate the interior and boundary functional terms of the FOSLS
functional in (2.24) and write
F(q, u
i
; h, T
q
(h
i
)) := F
I
(q, u
i
) + F
B
(q, u
i
; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)),
F
I
(q, u
i
) := |e
q
e
q
u
i
|
2
0,
+|e
q
e
q
u
i
|
2
0,
,
F
B
(q, u
i
; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)) := |n e
q
u
i
h
i
|
2
1/2,
+| e
q
u
i
T
q
(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
. (2.30)
The following lemmas set the stage for stating and proving the equivalence results.
The rst establishes a useful equivalence relation between F and the norm dened on
W
q
() by
|w|
2
Wq
:= |w|
2
0,
+|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
.
Lemma 2.9. Let w W
q
(). Then there exists a constant, c, depending on q
and , such that
1
c
|w|
2
Wq
F(q, w; 0, 0) c|w|
2
Wq
. (2.31)
Proof. The upper bound in (2.31) follows directly from the trace theorem [11].
For the lower bound, it suces to show there is a c such that
|w|
2
0,
c
_
|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+|n e
q
w|
2
1/2,
+| e
q
w|
2
1/2,
_
.
To this end, we use a scaled Helmholtz decomposition [11]: v (L
2
())
2
, there
exist H
1
0
() and H
1
()/R such that
v = e
q
+ e
q

.
The logic leading to this representation is to choose so that e
2q
= e
q
v and
to similarly choose to satisfy e
2q

= e
q
v. The choice of boundary
conditions on and enables us to eliminate the cross term that would otherwise
appear below and to use a PoincareFriedrichs inequality. With this decomposition,
we write
|w|
0,
= sup
v (L
2
())
2
w, v)
0,
|v|
0,
= sup
, H
1
()
w, e
q
+ e
q

)
0,
|e
q
+ e
q

|
0,
sup
H
1
()
w, e
q
)
0,
|e
q
|
0,
+ sup
H
1
()
w, e
q

)
0,
|e
q

|
0,
=
w, e
q

)
0,
|e
q

|
0,
+
w, e
q

)
0,
|e
q

|
0,
. (2.32)
FOSLS AND EIT 475
Applying Greens theorem to the rst term, we have
w, e
q

)
0,
|e
q

|
0,

[e
q
e
q
w, e
q

)
0,
[ +[n e
q
w,

)
0,
[
|e
q

|
0,

|e
q
e
q
w|
0,
|e
q

|
0,
+|n e
q
w|
1/2,
|

|
1/2,
|e
q

|
0,

_
|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+|n e
q
w|
2
1/2,
_
1/2
_
|e
q

|
2
0,
+|

|
2
1/2,
|e
q

|
2
0,
_1/2
. (2.33)
The term in (2.33) that does not involve w may be bounded by a constant depending
on q and . To see this, note that we can use the PoincareFriedrichs inequality [11]
to write
|e
q

|
2
0,
+|

|
2
1/2,
|e
q

|
2
0,

max

e
2q
, 1
min

e
2q
(|

|
2
0,
+|

|
2
1/2,
)
|

|
2
0,
c(q),
where
c(q) = c
max

e
2q
, 1
min

e
2q
. (2.34)
Thus, (2.33) becomes
w, e
q

)
0,
|e
q

|
0,
c
1
(q)
_
|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+|n e
q
w|
2
1/2,
_
1/2
. (2.35)
Similarly, there is a c
2
(q) such that
[ w, e
q

)
0,
[
|e
q

|
0,
c
2
(q)
_
|e
q
e
q
w|
2
0,
+| e
q
w|
2
1/2,
_
1/2
. (2.36)
Therefore, combining inequalities (2.35) and (2.36) and choosing c appropriately
proves the lemma.
We also make use of the next lemma to relate the FOSLS functional directly to
the NtT map.
Lemma 2.10. Let w W
q
(), and suppose n e
q
w = h on . If w
h
satises
e
q
e
q
w
h
= 0 in ,
e
q
e
q
w
h
= 0 on ,
n e
q
w
h
= h on , (2.37)
then there exists a constant, c, depending only on and max

e
q
, such that e
q
(w
w
h
) satises
| e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
1/2,
c F
I
(q, w). (2.38)
Proof. We have from the trace theorem [11] that
| e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
1/2,
c
_
|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
+|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
_
c
_
|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
+|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
_
,
476 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
where c depends on and max

e
q
. Since, by assumption, n e
q
(w w
h
) = 0
on the boundary, we may bound the L
2
-term above using a PoincareFriedrichs-like
inequality of the form [2]
|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
c
_
|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
+| e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
_
, (2.39)
where c depends on and max

e
q
. We therefore have
| e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
1/2,
c
_
|e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
+| e
q
(ww
h
)|
2
0,
_
c F
I
(q, w),
where, again, c depends on and max

e
q
.
The above lemmas now allow us to establish a lower bound for the FOSLS func-
tional in terms of the defect in the ND map. In analogy to the equivalence es-
tablished for the KV formulation, the line of proof follows for each NT pair. To
begin, let u

, h, T
q
(h) be an NT triple for unknown

= e
2q

. This implies that

F(q

, u

; h, T
q
(h)) = 0. For arbitrary q H
1
(), provided q
|
= q

|
, and arbitrary
u W
q
(), we wish to interpret how F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) expresses errors q q

and
u u

. To facilitate this analysis, we write the perturbed functional as

F(q, u

+ u; h, T
q
(h)),
where u W
q
(). It is convenient to make the following denition.
Definition 2.11. Denote
S
q
:= u W
q
() : F
I
(q, u) = 0 ,
the space of F
I
-harmonic functions relative to q.
Before addressing arbitrary u W
q
(), and thus arbitrary u W
q
(), we
rst consider perturbations u such that u S
q
.
Lemma 2.12. Let u S
q
. Then
1
c
|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) h H
1/2
0
(),
where c = 1 +|T
q
|
2
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
.
Proof. Since u S
q
, we immediately have that F
I
(q, u) = 0. Also, writing
n e
q
u = f, we have that e
q
u = T
q
(f), and the remaining part of the functional
is the boundary term:
F
B
(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) = |f h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
= |f h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(f) T
q
(h) +T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
= |f h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+2T
q
(f) T
q
(h), T
q
(h) T
q
(h))
1/2,
. (2.40)
Now, since T
q
is linear, we have
|T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())

|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
|f h|
1/2,
.
FOSLS AND EIT 477
Denoting = |T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, we may write
|f h|
1/2,

1

|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
so that (2.40) becomes
F
B
(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
_
1 +
1

2
_
|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
2|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
.
Using an -inequality, > 0 we have
F
B
(q, u; h, T
q
(h))

_
1 +
1

2

_
|T
q
(f) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+
_
1
1

_
|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
.
Choosing = 1 +
1

2
leads to
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
_
1
1 +
2
_
|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
.
We now have all the necessary tools and notation to establish the main theorem,
associated with the lower bound in the equivalence we seek. We write an arbitrary
u (H
1
())
2
as u

+ u and consider its projection onto space S

q
.
Theorem 2.13. Assume that q

and u

are such that F(q

, u

; h, T
q
(h)) = 0,
and consider F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)), where q and u are arbitrary insofar as qq

H
1
0
()
and u W
q
(). Also, let u
s
satisfy
u

+ u
s
= arg min
u

+u

Sq
F(q, u

+ u

; h, T
q
(h)), (2.41)
and dene u = uu

. Then there exists a positive constant, c, depending on and

|T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, such that
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) c
_
|u u
s
|
2
Wq()
+|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
_
.
Proof. First, u

+ u
s
S
q
implies that
F(q, u

+ u; h, T
q
(h)) = F(q, u

+ u
s
+ u u
s
; h, T
q
(h))
= F
I
(q, u u
s
) + F
B
(q, u

+ u
s
+ u u
s
; h, T
q
(h)). (2.42)
On the boundary, we denote
n (e
q
(u

+ u
s
)) = h
s
,
(e
q
(u

+ u
s
)) = T
q
(h
s
)
and
n (e
q
(u u
s
)) = h,
(e
q
(u u
s
)) = f. (2.43)
478 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
Then (2.42) becomes
F(q, u

+ u; h, T
q
(h)) = F
I
(q, u u
s
) +h
s
h + h, h
s
h + h)
1/2,
+T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h) + f, T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h) + f)
1/2,
.
(2.44)
Next, expanding the terms in (2.44) leads to
F(q, u

+ u; h, T
q
(h))
= F
I
(q, u u
s
) +|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
+ 2 h
s
h, h)
1/2,
+ 2 T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), f)
1/2,
.
(2.45)
To address the cross terms, we must use the orthogonality statement associated with
(2.41). First, note that there exists a

u such that u

+

u, h + h, T
q
(h + h) is
an NT triple. We may therefore speak of T
q
(h + h) = T
q
(h) + T
q
(h) and of an
orthogonality condition for u

+ u
s
:
h
s
h, h)
1/2,
+T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), T
q
(h))
1/2,
= 0 h H
1/2
0
().
(2.46)
We can now use (2.46) to add and subtract some helpful terms so that, for any
(0, 1), equation (2.45) becomes
F(q, u ; h, T
q
(h))
= F
I
(q, u u
s
) +|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
+ 2 T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), f T
q
(h))
1/2,
+2(1 ) h
s
h, h)
1/2,
+ 2(1 ) T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), f)
1/2,
F
I
(q, u u
s
) +|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
2|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
|f T
q
(h)|
1/2,
2(1 )

h
s
h, h)
1/2,

2(1 )

T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), f)
1/2,

. (2.47)
Focusing on the (1 ) terms, by CauchySchwarz we have
2

h
s
h, h)
1/2,

|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
,
2

T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h), f)
1/2,

|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
.
Applying these bounds to (2.47), we have
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
F
I
(q, u u
s
) 2|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
|f T
q
(h)|
1/2,
+
_
|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
_
. (2.48)
Now, as a direct application of Lemma 2.10, there exists a constant c
1
such that
|f T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
c
1
F
I
(q, u u
s
). (2.49)
FOSLS AND EIT 479
To see this, rst note that u W
q
() such that u, h
s
+ h, T
q
(h
s
) + T
q
(h) is
an NT triple for q. Then observe that if we let w
h
= u and w = u

+u
s
+uu
s
,
we may write
(e
q
(ww
h
)) = f T
q
(h). (2.50)
Therefore, applying Lemma 2.10, we have
|f T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
c F
I
(q, ww
h
)
c F
I
(q, w)
c
1
F
I
(q, u u
s
). (2.51)
As a direct result of (2.51), we may write (2.48) as
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) F
I
(q, u u
s
) + |T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
2c
1
|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
(F
I
(q, u u
s
))
1/2
+
_
|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
_
. (2.52)
Next, we use an -inequality, with in place of , to rewrite the rst three terms: For
any > 0,
2c
1
|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
1/2,
(F
I
(q, u u
s
))
1/2
c
2
1
F
I
(q, u u
s
)

|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
, (2.53)
and (2.52) becomes
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) (1 c
2
1
)F
I
(q, u u
s
) +
_
1
1

_
|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
+
_
|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
_
.
Choosing 0 < < 1 and > 1 so that (1 c
2
1
) = (1 1/) and is as large as
possible, we have
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
_
1
1

_
_
F
I
(q, u u
s
) +|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
_
+
_
|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
+|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
_
.
(2.54)
Note that this is always possible since =
_
c
2
1
+ (1 1/)
_
1
. Now we use
F(q, u u
s
; 0, 0) = F
I
(q, u u
s
) +|h|
2
1/2,
+|f|
2
1/2,
so that we may write
F(q, u; h,T
q
(h))
c
2
_
F(q, u u
s
; 0, 0) +|h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
_
,
where c
2
:= (1 1/). Next, we recall that
F(q, u

+ u
s
; h, T
q
(h)) = F
B
(q, u

+ u
s
; h, T
q
(h))
= |h
s
h|
2
1/2,
+|T
q
(h
s
) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
,
480 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
since u

+ u
s
S
q
. Therefore, we may apply Lemma 2.12 to arrive at
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) c
_
F(q, u u
s
; 0, 0) +|T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
_
.
Finally, by Lemma 2.9, we have the desired coercive bound.
We now state an equivalence result for a xed NT pair, h, T
q
(h), which im-
mediately follows from Theorem 2.13 and a simple derivation of the upper bound.
Corollary 2.14. Let h H
1/2
0
(), and recall that = e
2q
and

= e
2q

. Then
there exists a positive constant, c, depending only on and |T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
,
such that
c|

(h)

(h)|
2
1/2,
min
u Wq()
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
|

(h)

(h)|
2
1/2,
. (2.55)
Proof. The lower bound follows immediately from applying Lemma 2.8 to the
statement in Theorem 2.13 and performing the minimization in (2.24). To show
continuity, we simply restrict the space over which the minimization is conducted and
use the denition of S
q
to see that
min
u Wq()
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h)) min
uSq
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
min
{uSq:nu=h}
F
B
(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
= |T
q
(h) T
q
(h)|
2
1/2,
(2.56)
for any h H
1/2
0
(). Hence, again appealing to Lemma 2.8 to relate T to proves
the upper bound in (2.55).
The above corollary immediately leads to the equivalence of the OLS and FOSLS
functionals, which we now state formally.
Corollary 2.15. With T
OSLS
dened in (2.24), there exists a positive constant,
c, depending only on and |T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, such that
c
L

i=1
|

(h
i
)

(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
T
OSLS
(q; h
i
, T
q
(h
i
)
L
i=1
)

i=1
|

(h
i
)

(h
i
)|
2
1/2,
. (2.57)
As in the previous section, we can also state the equivalence of a sup version of
the FOSLS functional and the operator norm of the defect in the NtD maps. For
c > 0 depending only on and |T
q
|
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
, we may write
c|

|
2
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
sup
hH
1/2
0
()
_
min
u Wq()
F(q, u; h, T
q
(h))
_
|h|
1/2,
|

|
2
L(H
1/2
0
(),H
1/2
0
())
.
FOSLS AND EIT 481
3. Unifying FOSLS framework. Beyond their equivalence, another connec-
tion between the KV and FOSLS functionals can be made. Considering a single DN
pair, the FOSLS interior functional may be written as
_
_
_
_
_
e
q
e
q
e
q
e
q
_
u
_
_
_
_
2
0,
:= |Lu|
2
0,
.
Alternatively, one can arrive at the KV functional using a generalized Helmholtz
decomposition for u, leading to
u = e
q
e
q
r e
q

e
q
t
= L

_
r
t
_
,
for some r, t H
1
(). The KV functional in this context, for a single DN pair, may
be written as
|e
q
p e
q

s|
2
0,
=
_
_
_
_
L

_
e
q
p
e
q
s
__
_
_
_
2
0,
and may thus be viewed as a rst-order system LL

(FOSLL

) formulation [6]. Indeed,

in being adjoint formulations, the L in FOSLS has overspecied boundary conditions,
while the corresponding L

has no boundary conditions. FOSLL

is in its formative
stages as a viable methodology for the solution of PDEs, yet it may prove partic-
ularly eective in the forward solution of Maxwells equations, for which regularity
requirements of standard FOSLS are often too stringent. As such, the KV formulation
represents an interesting connection between FOSLL

and the inverse problem.

4. Conclusion. We have presented a new FOSLS formulation for the recon-
struction of conductivity or, equivalently, resistivity, given knowledge of the corre-
sponding NtD map. Moreover, we have established its equivalence to two existing
approaches, including the standard constrained minimization, OLS. Further analysis
of many practical concerns is needed before this novel approach moves beyond theory
to actually impact imaging technology. Here we have established the common ground
from which to conduct such analysis and only begun to explore the role FOSLS can
play in determining the sense in which the inverse problem of EIT can be posed well.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Backus and F. Gilbert, The resolving power of gross earth data, Geophysical Journal of
the Royal Astronomical Society, 266 (1968), pp. 169205.
[2] M. Berndt, T. Manteuffel, S. McCormick, and G. Starke, Analysis of rst-order system
least squares (FOSLS) for elliptic problems with discontinuous coecients: Part I, SIAM
J. Numer. Anal., submitted.
[3] L. Borcea, A nonlinear multigrid for imaging conductivity and permittivity at low frequency,
Inverse Problems, 17 (2001), pp. 329360.
[4] B. Brown, Medical impedance tomography and process impedance tomography: A brief review,
Measurement Science and Technology, 12 (2001), pp. 991996.
[5] Z. Cai, T. A. Manteuffel, and S. McCormick, First-order system least squares for second-
order partial dierential equations: Part II, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 34 (1997), pp. 425454.
[6] Z. Cai, T. A. Manteuffel, S. McCormick, and J. Ruge, First-order system LL

(FOSLL

):
Scalar elliptic partial dierential equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 39 (2001), pp. 1418
1445.
482 H. R. MACMILLAN, T. A. MANTEUFFEL, AND S. F. MCCORMICK
[7] A. Calderon, On an inverse boundary problem, in Seminar on Numerical Analysis and Its
Applications to Continuum Physics, W. Meyer and M. Raupp, eds., 1980, Brazilian Math.
Society, Rio de Janeiro, 1980, pp. 6573.
[8] M. Cheney, D. Isaacson, and J. C. Newell, Electrical impedance tomography, SIAM Rev.,
41 (1999), pp. 85101.
[9] D. Dobson and F. Santosa, An image-enhancement technique for electrical impedance to-
mography, Inverse Problems, 10 (1993), pp. 317334.
[10] EIT.org, Academic Organization for Biomedical Applications, http://www.eit.org.uk.
[11] V. Girault and P. A. Raviart, Finite Element Methods for Navier-Stokes Equations,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
[12] E. Haber and D. Oldenburg, A gcv based method for nonlinear ill-posed problems, Comput.
Geosci., 4 (2000), pp. 4163.
[13] E. Haber and L. Tenorio, Learning regularization functionals: A supervised training ap-
proach, Inverse Problems, 19 (2003), pp. 611626.
[14] P. Holden, M. Wang, R. Mann, F. Dickin, and R. Edwards, On detecting mixing patholo-
gies inside a stirred vessel using electrical impedance tomography, Chemical Engineering
Research and Design, 77 (1999), pp. 709712.
[15] Industrial Tomography Systems, Inc., http://www.itoms.com.
[16] D. Isaacson, Distinguishability of conductivities by electric current computed tomography,
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 5 (1986), pp. 9195.
[17] V. Isakov, Inverse Problems for Partial Dierential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1997.
[18] J. Kaipio, V. Kolehmainen, M. Vauhkonen, and E. Somersalo, Inverse problems with
structural prior information, Inverse Problems, 15 (1999), pp. 713729.
[19] J. P. Kaipio, V. Kolehmainen, E. Somersalo, and M. Vauhkonen, Statistical inversion
methods in electrical impedance tomography, Inverse Problems, 16 (2000), pp. 14871522.
[20] R. Kohn and A. McKenney, Numerical implementation of a variational method for electrical
impedance tomography, Inverse Problems, 6 (1990), pp. 389414.
[21] R. Kohn and M. Vogelius, Determining conductivity by boundary measurements, Comm.
Pure Appl. Math., 37 (1984), pp. 289298.
[22] R. Kohn and M. Vogelius, Determining conductivity by boundary measurements II. Interior
results, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 38 (1985), pp. 643667.
[23] R. Kohn and M. Vogelius, Relaxation of a variational method for impedance computed to-
mograhy, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 40 (1987), pp. 745777.
[24] J. L. Lions and E. Magenes, Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.
[25] H. MacMillan, S. McCormick, and T. Manteuffel, First-Order System Least Squares and
Electrical Impedance Tomography: Numerical Results, manuscript.
[26] K. Mosegaard and A. Tarantola, Probabilistic Approach to Inverse Problems, Academic
Press, San Diego, 2002, pp. 100180.
[27] A. Nachman, Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional inverse boundary value problem, Ann.
of Math. (2), 143 (1996), pp. 7196.
[28] G. A. Newman and G. M. Hoversten, Solution strategies for two- and three-dimensional
electromagnetic inverse problems, Inverse Problems, 16 (2000), pp. 13571375.
[29] R. L. Parker, The inverse problem of electrical conductivity in the mantle, Geophysical Journal
of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22 (1970), pp. 121138.
[30] R. L. Parker, Geophysical Inverse Theory, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ, 1996.
[31] P. Pinheiro, W. W. Loh, M. Wang, R. Mann, and R. C. Waterfall, Three-dimensional
electrical resistance tomography in a stirred mixing vessel, Chemical Engineering Commu-
nications, 175 (1999), pp. 2538.
[32] A. Seagar, T. Yeo, and R. Bates, Full-wave computed tomography: Resolution limits, IEE
Proceedings, Pt. A, Physical Science and Measurement, 131 (1984), pp. 616622.
[33] A. D. Seagar, T. S. Yeo, and R. H. Bates, Full-wave computed tomography: Low frequency
electric current, IEE Proceedings, Pt. A, Physical Science and Measurement, 132 (1985),
pp. 455466.
[34] H. Storz, W. Storz, and F. Jacobs, Electrical resistivity tomography to investigate geological
structures of the earths upper crust, Geophysical Prospecting, 48 (2000), pp. 455471.
[35] J. Sylvester and G. Uhlmann, A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value
problem, Ann. of Math. (2), 125 (1987), pp. 153169.
[36] A. Tikhonov and V. Ya, Methods for Solving Ill-Posed Problems, John Wiley and Sons, Des
Moines, IA, 1977.
[37] A. Tripp, E. Cherkaeva, and J. Hulen, Bounds on the complex conductivity of geophysical
FOSLS AND EIT 483
mixtures, Geophysical Prospecting, 46 (1998), pp. 589601.
[38] M. Vauhkonen, J. P. Kaipio, E. Somersalo, and P. A. Karjalainen, Electrical impedance
tomography with basis constraints, Inverse Problems, 13 (1997), pp. 523530.
[39] M. Vauhkonen, D. Vadasz, P. Karjalainen, E. Somersalo, and J. Kaipio, Tikhonov reg-
ularization and prior information in electrical impedance tomography, IEEE Transactions
on Medical Imaging, 17 (1998), pp. 197219.
[40] P. Vauhkonen, M. Vauhkonen, T. Savolainen, and J. Kaipio, Three-dimensional electrical
impedance tomography on the complete electrode model, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, 46 (1999), pp. 11501160.
[41] A. Wexler, B. Fry, and M. Neumann, Impedance-computed tomography algorithm and sys-
tem, Applied Optics, 24 (1985), pp. 39853992.
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.