BIT Numerical Mathematics

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 893–918 | Cite as

Inheritance of the discrete Picard condition in Krylov subspace methods



When projection methods are employed to regularize linear discrete ill-posed problems, one implicitly assumes that the discrete Picard condition (DPC) is somehow inherited by the projected problems. In this paper we show that, under some assumptions, the DPC holds for the projected uncorrupted systems computed by various Krylov subspace methods. By exploiting the inheritance of the DPC, some estimates on the behavior of the projected problems are also derived. Numerical examples are provided in order to illustrate the accuracy of the derived estimates.


Discrete Picard condition Iterative regularization  Arnoldi algorithm GMRES residual Lanczos bidiagonalization algorithm 

Mathematics Subject Classification

65F10 65F22 65R32 



We are grateful to the anonymous Referee and to the Editor for providing insightful suggestions that helped to expand and improve the paper.


  1. 1.
    Berisha, S., Nagy, J.G.: Iterative image restoration. In: Chellappa, R., Theodoridis S. (eds.) Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, vol. 4, chap. 7, pp. 193–243. Elsevier, London (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunch, J.R., Nielsen, C.P.: Upadating the singular value decomposition. Numer. Math. 31, 111–129 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvetti, D., Lewis, B., Reichel, L.: On the regularizing properties of the GMRES method. Numer. Math. 91, 605–625 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvetti, D., Morigi, S., Reichel, L., Sgallari, F.: Tikhonov regularization and the L-curve for large discrete ill-posed problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 123, 423–446 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engl, H.W., Hanke, M., Neubauer, A.: Regularization of Inverse Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gazzola, S., Novati, P., Russo, M.R.: Embedded techniques for choosing the parameter in Tikhonov regularization. Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 21(6), 796–812 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gazzola, S., Novati, P., Russo, M.R.: On Krylov projection methods and Tikhonov regularization. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. 44, 83–123 (2015)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golub, G.H., Kahan, W.: Calculating the singular values and pseudo-inverse of a matrix. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 2, 205–224 (1965)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golub, G.H., Loan, C.F.V.: Matrix Computations, 3rd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanke, M.: Conjugate Gradient Type Methods for Ill-Posed Problems. Longman, Essex (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanke, M., Hansen, P.C.: Regularization methods for large-scale problems. Surv. Math. Ind. 3, 253–315 (1993)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen, P.C.: Computation of the singular value expansion. Computing 40(3), 185–199 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen, P.C.: The discrete Picard condition for discrete ill-posed problems. BIT 30, 658–672 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen, P.C.: Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems. SIAM, Philadelphia (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, P.C.: Regularization tools version 3.0 for Matlab 5.2. Numer. Algorithms 20, 195–196 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansen, P.C., Nagy, J.G., O’Leary, D.P.: Deblurring Images: Matrices, Spectra and Filtering. SIAM, Philadelphia (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hansen, P.C.: Regularization tools version 4.0 for Matlab 7.3. Numer. Algorithms 46, 189–194 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hnetynkova, I., Plesinger, M., Strakos, Z.: The regularizing effect of the Golub–Kahan iterative bidiagonalization and revealing the noise level in the data. BIT 49, 669–696 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen, T.K., Hansen, P.C.: Iterative regularization with minimum-residual methods. BIT 47, 103–120 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kilmer, M.E., O’Leary, D.: Choosing regularization parameters in iterative methods for ill-posed problems. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 22(4), 1204–1221 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagy, J.G., Palmer, K.M., Perrone, L.: Iterative methods for image deblurring: a Matlab object oriented approach. Numer. Algorithms 36, 73–93 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novati, P., Russo, M.R.: A GCV based Arnoldi–Tikhonov regularization method. BIT 54(2), 501–521 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Leary, D.P., Simmons, J.A.: A bidiagonalization-regularization procedure for large scale discretizations of ill-posed problems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 2(4), 474–489 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paige, C.C., Saunders, M.A.: Algorithm 583 LSQR: sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 8, 195–209 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paige, C.C., Saunders, M.A.: LSQR: an algorithm for sparse linear equations and and sparse least squares. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 8, 43–71 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saad, Y.: Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, 2nd edn. SIAM, Philadelphia (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di MatematicaUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Matematica e GeoscienzeUniversità di TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations