arXiv reader

Reconstructing constant point heat sources from few temperature sensors: sparse selection and spatial resolution

Xiaomei Yang and Zhiliang Deng

arXiv
2610.21301v1 · PDF · 15 October 2026
Categories
stat.ME, cs.NA, math.NA
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Thermal diffusion and measurement noise can obscure the number and individual parameters of localized heat sources. We study the reconstruction of constant positive point sources from temperature histories at a few sensors, without prescribing the source count. Orthogonal matching pursuit or least angle regression selects candidate locations from a unit-response dictionary. These candidates initialize continuous constrained fits, and a noise-based discrepancy rule selects the smallest accepted model among the attempted fits. The response analysis distinguishes rejection of a merged one-source model from accurate recovery of the individual sources. It gives a projected quadratic residual for a close pair, a weak direction in the two-source parameters, and a conditional bound for recovering the total strength and strength-weighted center of an unresolved cluster. A local Gaussian approximation relates one-source rejection to noise and separation. Paired numerical tests compare sensor and time-sampling budgets, noise levels, and source separations. Finite-plate data generated independently of the inverse response and a three-dimensional example assess the same fitting procedure. In the tested configurations, source-count selection and individual parameter recovery differ substantially, while unresolved pairs can retain accurate aggregate estimates. The framework combines reconstruction with a local interpretation of which heat-source information the observations support.

Items 22

Proposition

Proposition 1 (Response approximation on a candidate grid)

72JY

Suppose that \boldsymbol g is continuously differentiable on a neighborhood of a convex region separated from the sensors and containing each source z_j and its nearest candidate \xi_j, with \left\|D\boldsymbol g(z)\right\|_{\rm op}\leq C_1 on that region. If |z_j-\xi_j|\leq h_\Gamma, then

\left\|\sum_ja_j\boldsymbol g(z_j)-\sum_ja_j\boldsymbol g(\xi_j)\right\|_2 \leq C_1h_\Gamma\sum_ja_j.

For a Cartesian grid covering the source region with coordinate spacing h, h_\Gamma\leq\sqrt d\,h/2.

Proof of Proposition 1

Set \gamma_j(s)=z_j+s(\xi_j-z_j), 0\leq s\leq1. Convexity keeps the segment in the region where the derivative bound holds. The fundamental theorem of calculus gives

\boldsymbol g(\xi_j)-\boldsymbol g(z_j)=\int_0^1D\boldsymbol g(\gamma_j(s))(\xi_j-z_j)\,ds.

The induced operator-norm bound implies \left\|\boldsymbol g(\xi_j)-\boldsymbol g(z_j)\right\|_2\leq C_1|\xi_j-z_j|\leq C_1h_\Gamma. Multiply by a_j>0, sum, and apply the triangle inequality. If several true sources use the same node, their amplitudes are added, so total strength is preserved. The farthest point in a Cartesian cell is at distance \sqrt d\,h/2 from a nearest node.

Proposition

Proposition 2 (A source-count separation condition)

LBAE

Let the true distinct-source configuration have K_*\geq1 positive atoms satisfying the fitting bounds, and put y=f_*+e+m, where f_*\in\mathcal F_{K_*}, \left\|e\right\|_2\leq\eta, and \left\|m\right\|_2\leq b_{\rm mod}. Here m denotes a deterministic forward-model discrepancy. If

\eta+b_{\rm mod}\leq\epsilon, \qquad d_{K_*-1}(f_*)>\epsilon+\eta+b_{\rm mod},

then the smallest k satisfying d_k(y)\leq\epsilon is K_*. If a converged attempted K_*-source fit attains residual at most \epsilon, a sequential local-fit procedure with K_*\leq k_{\max} that tests every smaller size also returns K_* under these conditions.

Proof of Proposition 2

Distance to a nonempty set is 1-Lipschitz, so |d_k(y)-d_k(f_*)|\leq\eta+b_{\rm mod}. Nestedness implies d_k(f_*)\geq d_{K_*-1}(f_*) for k<K_*; therefore every smaller model has residual greater than \epsilon. The true model has d_{K_*}(y)\leq\eta+b_{\rm mod}\leq\epsilon. An attempted fit cannot have a residual smaller than its global model distance. The additional local-fit assumption thus suffices for the sequential procedure.

Proposition

Proposition 3 (Single-source whole-space reference)

UFCF

For 0<t_1<t_2, H_d(r,t_1)/H_d(r,t_2) is strictly decreasing for r>0. Exact readings at these two times at d+1 affinely independent sensors therefore determine the location and strength of a single positive source uniquely, provided it does not coincide with a sensor.

Proof of Proposition 3

Set x=r^2/(4\kappa)>0 and p=d/2-2. Changing variables v=1/s gives the ratio

Q(x)=\frac{\int_{1/t_1}^\infty v^pe^{-xv}\,dv}{\int_{1/t_2}^\infty v^pe^{-xv}\,dv}.

On [1/t_2,\infty), normalize v^pe^{-xv} to a probability density and let V have that density. The threshold is \tau=1/t_1>1/t_2 and Q(x)=P_x(V\geq\tau). Differentiating the numerator and denominator gives Q'(x)=-\operatorname{Cov}_x(V,\boldsymbol1_{\{V\geq\tau\}}). If p_+=P_x(V\geq\tau), this covariance equals

p_+(1-p_+)\{E_x[V\mid V\geq\tau]-E_x[V\mid V<\tau]\}>0.

Here P_x, E_x, and \operatorname{Cov}_x denote probability, expectation, and covariance under this normalized density. Both conditional events have positive probability, and all required moments are finite for x>0. Since x increases with r, the ratio is strictly decreasing in r.

At sensor i, the reading ratio cancels the strength and determines r_i=|b_i-z|. Subtracting |b_1-z|^2=r_1^2 from |b_i-z|^2=r_i^2 yields

2(b_i-b_1)^Tz=|b_i|^2-|b_1|^2-r_i^2+r_1^2,\qquad i=2,\ldots,d+1.

Affine independence makes this system invertible. A nonzero reading then determines the strength.

Proposition

Proposition 4 (Normalized response geometry)

2WPK

If \boldsymbol g is C^3 near z and nonzero there, then for a unit direction v,

1-\rho(z,z+\delta v)=\frac{\delta^2}{2}v^TG(z)v+O(\delta^3), \qquad Dq=\frac{(I-qq^T)D\boldsymbol g}{\left\|\boldsymbol g\right\|_2}.

The remainder is uniform on compact source regions with bounded derivatives and \left\|\boldsymbol g\right\|_2 bounded away from zero.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 4

Differentiation of q^Tq=1 gives q^TDq\,v=0 and q^TD^2q[v,v]=-\left\|Dq\,v\right\|_2^2. Taylor expansion of q(z+\delta v) and inner product with q(z) yield the result. Direct differentiation of \boldsymbol g/\left\|\boldsymbol g\right\|_2 gives the derivative identity. Standard uniform Taylor bounds give the compact-region statement.

Proposition

Proposition 5 (Eliminating unknown source strength)

IEU9

Suppose that \boldsymbol g is continuously differentiable near an interior parameter point (z,a), with a>0 and \boldsymbol g(z)\ne0. Then

\mathcal I_z(z,a) =\frac{a^2}{\sigma^2} D\boldsymbol g(z)^T(I-q(z)q(z)^T)D\boldsymbol g(z) =\frac{a^2\left\|\boldsymbol g(z)\right\|_2^2}{\sigma^2}G(z).

For every v\in\mathbb R^d,

v^T\mathcal I_z(z,a)v =\frac{1}{\sigma^2} \min_{s\in\mathbb R} \left\|aD\boldsymbol g(z)v+s\boldsymbol g(z)\right\|_2^2.

Moreover, \mathcal I_z(z,a) is positive definite if and only if J_1(z,a) has full column rank.

Proof of Proposition 5

The blocks of the joint information matrix are

\mathcal I_{zz}=\frac{a^2}{\sigma^2}D\boldsymbol g^TD\boldsymbol g,\qquad \mathcal I_{za}=\frac{a}{\sigma^2}D\boldsymbol g^T\boldsymbol g,\qquad \mathcal I_{aa}=\frac{\left\|\boldsymbol g\right\|_2^2}{\sigma^2},

where all responses and derivatives are evaluated at z. Substitution into the Schur complement yields the first equality in (5). The derivative identity in (4) yields the second.

For any v, the minimizing strength perturbation is

s_*=-\frac{a\boldsymbol g^TD\boldsymbol g\,v}{\left\|\boldsymbol g\right\|_2^2}.

Substituting s_* proves the variational formula. Its value vanishes for a nonzero v exactly when aD\boldsymbol g\,v+s\boldsymbol g=0 for some s. Since \boldsymbol g\ne0, every nonzero vector in the null space of J_1 has a nonzero position component. Thus \mathcal I_z is positive definite exactly when J_1 has full column rank.

Proposition

Proposition 6 (A merged cluster)

UWT8

Suppose that \boldsymbol g is C^2 on a convex neighborhood containing the cluster and separated from the sensors, and that \left\|D^2\boldsymbol g(z)[v,w]\right\|_2\leq C_2|v||w| there for all v,w\in\mathbb R^d. Then

\left\|\sum_ja_j\boldsymbol g(z_j)-A_c\boldsymbol g(c)\right\|_2 \leq\frac{C_2}{2}\sum_ja_j|z_j-c|^2.

For a pair separated by \delta, the right-hand side is C_2a_1a_2\delta^2/(2A_c).

Proof of Proposition 6

With v_j=z_j-c, Taylor’s formula with integral remainder gives

\boldsymbol g(z_j)=\boldsymbol g(c)+D\boldsymbol g(c)v_j+ \int_0^1(1-s)D^2\boldsymbol g(c+sv_j)[v_j,v_j]\,ds.

The first-order sum vanishes because \sum_ja_jv_j=0. Bounding the remaining integrals proves the inequality. For a pair, direct substitution of its weighted center gives \sum_ja_j|z_j-c|^2=a_1a_2\delta^2/A_c.

Proposition

Proposition 7 (Projected pair-versus-one-source residual)

B9LA

Suppose that \theta_c is interior to the one-source fitting region, that \boldsymbol g is C^4 near c, and that J_c has full column rank. For all sufficiently small \delta\geq0, there is a strict local one-source least-squares minimizer \theta_\delta near \theta_c, with \theta_\delta\to\theta_c, whose residual norm satisfies

R_{1,\mathrm{loc}}(\delta) :=\left\|f(\theta_\delta)-y_\delta\right\|_2 =C\delta^2+O(\delta^3).

For equal strengths, the remainder is O(\delta^4). If C>0, the leading residual along this branch is quadratic.

Proof of Proposition 7

Cancellation of the first spatial moment gives the pair data

y_\delta=f(\theta_c)+\delta^2\boldsymbol d_2+O(\delta^3).

The stationary equation is

Df(\theta)^T\{f(\theta)-y_\delta\}=0.

At (\theta,\delta)=(\theta_c,0), its derivative with respect to \theta is J_c^TJ_c, which is positive definite. The implicit function theorem yields a nearby stationary branch \theta_\delta. By continuity of the least-squares Hessian, this branch consists of strict local minimizers for sufficiently small \delta. Expansion of the stationary equation gives

\theta_\delta =\theta_c+\delta^2(J_c^TJ_c)^{-1}J_c^T\boldsymbol d_2 +O(\delta^3).

Substitution yields

f(\theta_\delta)-y_\delta =-\delta^2P_c^\perp\boldsymbol d_2+O(\delta^3).

Taking norms proves (7). For equal strengths, the pair data satisfy

y_\delta=f(\theta_c)+\delta^2\boldsymbol d_2+O(\delta^4).

Since \theta_\delta-\theta_c=O(\delta^2), the same stationary-equation calculation improves both the parameter and residual remainders to O(\delta^4).

Proposition

Proposition 8 (A weak two-source parameter direction)

7DT4

Let z_1=c_{\rm mid}-\delta v/2, z_2=c_{\rm mid}+\delta v/2, with \delta>0, |v|=1, and a_1,a_2>0. Suppose that \boldsymbol g is C^3 on a neighborhood of the segment joining z_1 and z_2, and that

\sup_{|s|\leq\delta/2} \left\|D^3\boldsymbol g(c_{\rm mid}+sv)[v,v,v]\right\|_2\leq C_3.

For the two-source parameter \theta=(z_1,a_1,z_2,a_2), use J_2(\theta) from (?) and define

w_\delta= \left(\frac{\delta v}{2a_1},1, \frac{\delta v}{2a_2},-1\right).

Then, writing J_2=J_2(\theta),

\inf_{|w|=1}\left\|J_2w\right\|_2 \leq\frac{\left\|J_2w_\delta\right\|_2}{|w_\delta|} \leq\frac{C_3\delta^3}{12|w_\delta|} \leq\frac{C_3\delta^3}{12\sqrt2}.
Proof of Proposition 8

Set \varphi(s)=\boldsymbol g(c_{\rm mid}+sv) and h=\delta/2. Direct multiplication gives

J_2w_\delta =\varphi(-h)-\varphi(h) +h\{\varphi'(-h)+\varphi'(h)\}.

Integration by parts twice yields

J_2w_\delta =\frac12\int_{-h}^{h}(h^2-s^2)\varphi^{(3)}(s)\,ds.

Hence

\left\|J_2w_\delta\right\|_2 \leq\frac{C_3}{2}\int_{-h}^{h}(h^2-s^2)\,ds =\frac{2C_3h^3}{3} =\frac{C_3\delta^3}{12}.

Testing the minimum gain with w_\delta/|w_\delta| and using |w_\delta|\geq\sqrt2 proves (8).

Proposition

Proposition 9 (Conditional local recovery of a cluster aggregate)

CR7U

Let \theta_c=(c,A_c) be the aggregate parameter of a positive cluster, and suppose that

s_c=\inf_{|w|=1}\left\|J_cw\right\|_2>0.

Suppose that f is continuously differentiable on an open convex neighborhood U of \theta_c, contained in the interior of the admissible parameter region, and that

\sup_{\theta\in U} \left\|Df(\theta)-Df(\theta_c)\right\|_{\rm op} \leq s_c/2.

Let

y=\sum_j a_j\boldsymbol g(z_j)+e,\qquad \left\|e\right\|_2\leq\eta,

and assume the hypotheses of Proposition 6. If a fitted one-source parameter \widehat\theta\in U satisfies \left\|f(\widehat\theta)-y\right\|_2\leq\epsilon, then

|\widehat\theta-\theta_c| \leq\frac{2}{s_c} \left( \epsilon+\eta +\frac{C_2}{2}\sum_j a_j|z_j-c|^2 \right).
Proof of Proposition 9

Write h=\widehat\theta-\theta_c. Since U is convex,

f(\widehat\theta)-f(\theta_c) =Df(\theta_c)h +\int_0^1 \{Df(\theta_c+th)-Df(\theta_c)\}h\,dt.

The derivative bound therefore implies

\left\|f(\widehat\theta)-f(\theta_c)\right\|_2 \geq s_c|h|-\frac{s_c}{2}|h| =\frac{s_c}{2}|h|.

On the other hand, the triangle inequality and Proposition 6 give

\left\|f(\widehat\theta)-f(\theta_c)\right\|_2 \leq\epsilon+\eta +\frac{C_2}{2}\sum_j a_j|z_j-c|^2.

Combining these inequalities proves (9).

Proposition

Proposition 10 (Local Gaussian rejection limit)

CIW8

Let M>d+1 and retain the assumptions and fixed quantities above. Suppose that \delta\to0 and \sigma\to0, with

\frac{\delta^2}{\sigma}\to\ell\in[0,\infty).

For

y=a_1\boldsymbol g(z_1)+a_2\boldsymbol g(z_2)+\sigma Z, \qquad Z\sim N(0,I_M),

let \widehat\theta be the local one-source least-squares fit on the branch near \theta_c. Writing \chi^2_r(\lambda) for a noncentral chi-square random variable with r degrees of freedom and noncentrality \lambda, we have

\frac{\left\|f(\widehat\theta)-y\right\|_2^2}{\sigma^2} \ \Longrightarrow\ \chi^2_{M-d-1}(\ell^2C^2).

Here \Longrightarrow denotes convergence in distribution. Consequently,

\Pr\!\left\{ \left\|f(\widehat\theta)-y\right\|_2^2>\sigma^2T_M \right\} \longrightarrow \Pr\!\left\{ \chi^2_{M-d-1}(\ell^2C^2)>T_M \right\}.
Proof of Proposition 10

Set y_0=f(\theta_c). The stationary equation for a one-source fit is

Df(\theta)^T\{f(\theta)-y\}=0.

At (\theta,y)=(\theta_c,y_0), its derivative with respect to \theta is J_c^TJ_c, which is positive definite. The implicit function theorem therefore defines a twice continuously differentiable local parameter map \widehat\theta(y). By continuity of the least-squares Hessian, this map gives strict local minimizers for y sufficiently close to y_0.

The corresponding residual map

\boldsymbol r(y)=f(\widehat\theta(y))-y

satisfies

\boldsymbol r(y_0)=0,\qquad D\boldsymbol r(y_0)=-P_c^\perp.

The pair-response expansion gives

\boldsymbol u_\delta:=y-y_0 =\delta^2\boldsymbol d_2+\sigma Z+O(\delta^3),

and hence

\boldsymbol r(y)=-P_c^\perp \boldsymbol u_\delta+O(\left\|\boldsymbol u_\delta\right\|_2^2).

Since \delta^2/\sigma is bounded,

\left\|\boldsymbol u_\delta\right\|_2 =O_p(\delta^2+\sigma) =O_p(\sigma).

Also, \delta^3/\sigma\to0. Thus

\frac{\boldsymbol r(y)}{\sigma} =-P_c^\perp\left( Z+\frac{\delta^2}{\sigma}\boldsymbol d_2 \right)+o_p(1) \ \Longrightarrow\ -P_c^\perp(Z+\ell\boldsymbol d_2).

Here O_p denotes boundedness in probability after scaling, and o_p(1) denotes convergence to zero in probability. The local fit is defined on a fixed neighborhood reached with probability tending to one; any extension outside that neighborhood leaves the limit unchanged.

The matrix P_c^\perp is an orthogonal projector of rank M-d-1. Therefore, the squared norm of the limiting vector has a noncentral chi-square distribution with noncentrality

\ell^2\left\|P_c^\perp\boldsymbol d_2\right\|_2^2=\ell^2C^2.

This proves (10). The limiting distribution is continuous at T_M, which also proves convergence of the rejection probability.

Proposition

Proposition 11 (Probability-indexed local separation scale)

WSM2

Retain the assumptions of Proposition 10 and suppose that C>0. Choose

\pi\in \left( \Pr\{\chi^2_{M-d-1}(0)>T_M\},\,1 \right).

Let \lambda_\pi>0 be the unique solution of

\Pr\{\chi^2_{M-d-1}(\lambda_\pi)>T_M\}=\pi.

Define the local reference separation by

\delta_\pi(\sigma) =\left(\frac{\lambda_\pi\sigma^2}{C^2}\right)^{1/4}.

For \delta=\delta_\pi(\sigma), the probability of rejecting the local one-source fit tends to \pi as \sigma\to0.

Proof of Proposition 11

At a fixed positive threshold, the noncentral chi-square upper-tail probability is continuous and strictly increasing in the noncentrality parameter, from its central value to one. Thus \lambda_\pi exists and is unique. Equation (11) gives

\frac{\delta_\pi(\sigma)^2}{\sigma} =\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_\pi}}{C}.

Proposition 10 then gives the stated limit.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.21301v1 by Xiaomei Yang and Zhiliang Deng, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2610/2610.21301.jsonl.