Image reconstruction through metamorphosis
Barbara Gris ∗ Chong Chen † Ozan Oktem¨ ‡
Abstract This article adapts the framework of metamorphosis to solve inverse problems in imaging that includes joint reconstruction and image reg- istration. The deformations in question have two components, one that is a geometric deformation moving intensities and the other a defor- mation of intensity values itself, which, e.g., allows for appearance of a new structure. The idea developed here is to reconstruct an image from noisy and indirect observations by registering, via metamorpho- sis, a template to the observed data. Unlike a registration with only geometrical changes, this framework gives good results when intensi- ties of the template are poorly chosen. We show that this method is a well-defined regularisation method (proving existence, stability and convergence) and present several numerical examples.
1 Introduction
In shape based reconstruction or spatiotemporal image reconstruction, a key difficulty is to match an image against an indirectly observed target (indirect image registration). This paper provides theory and algorithms for indirect image registration applicable to general inverse problems. Before proceed- ing, we give a brief overview of these notions along with a short survey of existing results.
Shape based reconstruction The goal is to recover shapes of interior sub-structures of an object whereas variations within these is of less im- portance. Examples of such imaging studies are nano-characterisation of specimens by means of electron microscopy or x-ray phase contrast imag- arXiv:1806.01225v2 [cs.CV] 22 Jun 2018 ing, e.g., nano-characterisation of materials by electron electron tomography (ET) primarily focuses on the morphology of sub-structures [5]. Another ex- ample is quantification of sub-resolution porosity in materials by means of x-ray phase contrast imaging.
∗LJLL - Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, UPMC, Paris, France. †LSEC, ICMSEC, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of China ‡Department of Mathematics, KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Swe- den.
1 In these imaging applications it makes sense to account for qualitative prior shape information during the reconstruction. Enforcing an exact spa- tial match between a template and the reconstruction is often too strong since realistic shape information is almost always approximate, so the natu- ral approach is to perform reconstruction assuming the structures are ‘shape wise similar’ to a template.
Spatiotemporal imaging Imaging an object that undergoes temporal variation leads to a spatiotemporal reconstruction problem where both the object and its time variation needs to be recovered from noisy time series of measured data. An important case is when the only time dependency is that of the object. Spatiotemporal imaging occurs in medical imaging, see, e.g., [23] for a survey of organ motion models. It is particular relevant for techniques like positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), which are used for visualising the distribution of in- jected radiopharmaceuticals (activity map). The latter is an inherently dy- namic quantity, e.g., anatomical structures undergo motion, like the motion of the heart and respiratory motion of the lungs and thoracic wall, during the data acquisition. Not accounting for organ motion is known to degrade the spatial localisation of the radiotracer, leading to spatially blurred im- ages. Furthermore, even when organ motion can be neglected, there are other dynamic processes, such as the uptake and wash-out of radiotracers from body organs. Visualising such kinetics of the radiotracers can actually be a goal in itself, as in pre-clinical imaging studies related to drug discov- ery/development. The term ‘dynamic’ in PET and SPECT imaging often refers to such temporal variation due to radiotracers kinetics rather than organ movement [13]. To exemplify the above mentioned issues, consider SPECT based cardiac perfusion studies and 18F-FDG-PET imaging of lung nodules/tumours. The former needs to account for the beating heart and the latter for respiratory motion of the lungs and thoracic wall. Studies show a maximal displacement of 23 mm (average 15–20 mm) due to respiratory motion [21] and 42 mm (average 8–23 mm) due to cardiac motion in thoracic PET [25].
Indirect image registration (matching) In image registration the aim is to deform a template image so that it matches a target image, which becomes challenging when the template is allowed to undergo non-rigid de- formations. A well developed framework is diffeomorphic image registration where the image registration is recast as the problem of finding a suitable diffeo- morphism that deforms the template into the target image [26,2]. The underlying assumption is that the target image is contained in the orbit of
2 the template under the group action of diffeomorphisms. This can be stated in a very general setting where diffeomorphisms act on various structures, like landmark points, curves, surfaces, scalar images, or even vector/tensor valued images. The registration problem becomes more challenging when the target is only known indirectly through measured data. This is referred to as indirect image registration, see [19] for using small diffeomorphic deformations and [9, 14] for adapting the large deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping (LDDMM) framework to indirect image registration.
2 Overview of paper and specific contributions
The paper adapts the metamorphosis framework [24] to the indirect im- age registration setting. Metamorphosis is an extension of the LDDMM framework (diffeomorphometry) [26, 16] where not only the geometry of the template, but also the grey-scale values undergo diffeomorphic changes. We start by recalling necessary theory from LDDMM-based indirect reg- istration (section3). Using the notions from section3, we adapt the meta- morphosis framework to the indirect setting (section4). We show how this framework allows to define a regularization method for inverse problems, satisfying properties of existence, stability and convergence (section 4.3). The numerical implementation is outlined in section 4.4. We present several numerical examples from 2D tomography, and in particular give a prelimi- nary result for motion reconstruction when the acquisition is done at several time points. We also study the robustness of our methods with respects to the parameters (section5).
3 Indirect diffeomorphic registration
3.1 Large diffeomorphic deformations We recall here the notion of large diffeomorphic deformations defined by flows of time-varying vector fields, as formalized in [1]. d 2 Let Ω ⊂ R be a fixed bounded domain and let X := L (Ω, R) represent grey scale images on Ω. Next, let V denote a fixed Hilbert space of vector d p fields on R . We will assume V ⊂ C0 (Ω), i.e., the vector fields are supported on Ω and p times continuously differentiable. Finally, L1 ([0, 1],V ) denotes the space of time-dependent V -vector fields that are integrable, i.e.,
ν(t, · ) ∈ V and t 7→ ν(t, · ) Cp is integrable on [0, 1]. Furthermore, we will frequently make use of the following (semi) norm on Z 1 p 1/p kνkp := ν(t, · ) V dt 0
3 where k · kV is the naturally defined norm based upon the inner product of the Hilbert space V of vector fields. The following proposition allows one to consider flows of elements in 1 p L ([0, 1],V ) and ensures that these flows belong to Diff0(Ω) (set of p- d diffeomorphisms that are supported in Ω ⊂ R , and if Ω is unbounded, tend to zero towards infinity).
Proposition 1. Let ν ∈ L1 ([0, 1],V ) and consider the ordinary differential equation (flow equation): d φ(t, x) = ν t, φ(t, x) dt for any x ∈ Ω and t ∈ [0, 1]. (1) φ(0, x) = x
p d Then, (1) has a unique absolutely continuous solution φ(t, · ) ∈ Diff0(R ). The above result is proved in [1] and the unique solution of (1) is hence- ν d d forth called the flow of ν. We also introduce to notation ϕs,t : R → R that refers to ν −1 ϕs,t := φ(t, · ) ◦ φ(s, · ) for s, t ∈ [0, 1] (2) d where φ:Ω → R denotes the unique solution to (1). As stated next, the set of diffeomorphisms that are given as flows forms a group that is a complete metric space [1].
p Proposition 2. Let V ⊂ C0 (Ω) (p ≥ 1) be an admissible reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) and define
n d d ν 2 o GV := φ: R → R | φ = ϕ0,1 for some ν ∈ L ([0, 1],V ) .
p d Then GV forms a sub-group of Diff0(R ) that is a complete metric space under the metric
n 1 ν o dG(φ1, φ2) := inf kνk1 : ν ∈ L ([0, 1],V ) and φ1 = φ2 ◦ ϕ0,1
n 1 ν o = inf kνk2 : ν ∈ L ([0, 1],V ) and φ1 = φ2 ◦ ϕ0,1 .
The elements of GV are called large diffeomorphic deformations and GV acts on X via the geometric group action that is defined by the operator
−1 W : GV × X → X where W(φ, I0) := I0 ◦ φ . (3)
We conclude by stating regularity properties of flows of velocity fields as well as the group action in (3), these will play an important role in what is to follow. The proof is given in [6].
4 p Proposition 3. Assume V ⊂ C0 (Ω) (p ≥ 1) is a fixed admissible Hilbert n 2 space of vector fields on Ω and {ν }n ⊂ L ([0, 1],V ) a sequence that con- 2 n νn verges weakly to ν ∈ L ([0, 1],V ). Then, the following holds with ϕt := ϕ0,t :
n −1 ν −1 1. (ϕt ) converges to (ϕ0,t) uniformly w.r.t. t ∈ [0, 1] and uniformly d on compact subsets of Ω ⊂ R .
n ν 2. lim W(ϕt ,I0) − W(ϕ0,t,I0) = 0 for any f ∈ X. n→∞ X
3.2 Indirect image registration Image registration (matching) refers to the task of deforming a given tem- ∗ plate image I0 ∈ X so that it matches a given target image I ∈ X. The above task can also be stated in an indirect setting, which refers to the case when the template I0 ∈ X is to be registered against a target I∗ ∈ X that is only indirectly known through data g ∈ Y where
g = A(I∗) + e. (4)
In the above, A: X → Y (forward operator) is known and assumed to be differentiable and e ∈ Y is a single sample of a Y -valued random element that denotes the measurement noise in the data. A further development requires specifying what is meant by deforming a template image, and we will henceforth consider diffeomorphic (non-rigid) deformations, i.e., diffeomorphisms that deform images by actin g on them through a group action.
LDDMM-based registration An example of using large diffeomorphic (non-rigid) deformations for image registration is to minimize the following functional:
γ 2 ∗ 2 GV 3 φ 7→ dG(Id, φ) + W(φ, I0) − I given γ > 0. 2 X
If V is admissible, then minimizing the above functional on GV amounts to minimizing the following functional on L2 ([0, 1],V )[26, Theorem 11.2 and Lemma 11.3]:
2 γ 2 ν 2 L ([0, 1],V ) 3 ν 7→ kνk + W(ϕ ,I0) − f given γ > 0. 2 2 0,1 X Such a reformulation is advantageous since L2 ([0, 1],V ) is a vector space, 2 whereas GV is not, so it is easier to minimize a functional over L ([0, 1],V ) rather than over GV . The above can be extended to the indirect setting as shown in [9], which we henceforth refer to as LDDMM-based indirect registration. More pre- cisely, the corresponding indirect registration problem can be adressed by
5 minimising the functional γ L2 ([0, 1],V ) 3 ν 7→ kνk2 + L (A ◦ W)(ϕν ,I ), g. 2 2 0,t 0 Here, L: Y × Y → R is typically given by an appropriate affine transform of the data negative log-likelihood [4], so minimizing f 7→ L A(f), g corre- sponds to seeking a maximum likelihood solution of (4). An interpretation of the above is that the template image I0, which is assumed to be given a priori, acts as a shape prior when solving the inverse problem in (4) and γ > 0 is a regularization parameter that governs the influence of this shape priori against the need to fit measured data. This interpretation becomes more clear when one re-formulates LDDMM-based indirect registration as γ 2 min kνk2 + L (A ◦ W) φ(1, · ),I0 , g ν∈L2([0,1],V ) 2 d (5) φ(t, x) = ν t, φ(t, x) (t, x) ∈ Ω × [0, 1], dt φ(0, x) = x x ∈ Ω.
4 Metamorphosis-based indirect registration
4.1 Motivation As shown in [9], access to a template that can act as a shape prior can have profound effect in solving challenging inverse problem in imaging. As an example, tomographic imaging problems that are otherwise intractable (highly noisy and sparsely sampled data) can be successfully addressed using indirect registration even when using a template is far from the target image used for generating the data. When template has correct topology and intensity levels, then LDDMM- based indirect registration with geometric group action is remarkably stable as shown in [9]. Using a geometric group action, however, makes it impos- sible to create or remove intensity, e.g., it is not possible to start out from a template with a single isolated structure and deform it to a image with two isolated structures. This severely limits the usefulness of LDDMM-based in- direct registration, e.g., spatiotemporal images (moves) are likely to involve changes in both geometry (objects appear or disappear) and intensity. See fig.1 for an example of how wrong intensity influences the registration. As noted in [9], one approach is to replace the geometric group action with one that alters intensities, e.g., a mass preserving group action. An- other is to keep the geometric group action, but replace LDDMM with a framework for diffeomorphic deformations that acts on both geometry and intensities, e.g., metamorphosis. This latter approach is the essence of metamorphosis-based indirect registration.
6 (a) Template. (b) Target. (c) Reconstruction. (d) Data.
Figure 1: Reconstruction by LDDMM-based indirect registration (c) using a template (a) with a geometry that matches the target (b), but with in- correct background intensity values. Target is observed indirectly through tomographic data (d), which is 2D parallel beam Radon transform with 100 evenly distributed directions (see section 5.1 for details). The artefacts in the reconstruction are due to incorrect background intensity in template.
4.2 The metamorphosis framework In metamorphosis diffeomorphisms are still generated by flows as in LD- DMM, but the difference is that they now act with a geometric group action on both intensities and underlying points. As such, metamorphosis extends LDDMM. The abstract definition of a metamorphosis reads as follows. p Definition 1 (Metamorphosis [24]). Let V ⊂ C0 (Ω) be an admissible Hilbert space and “.” denotes some group action of GV on X.A Metamorphosis is a curve t 7→ (φt,Jt) in GV × X. The curve t 7→ ft := φt.Jt is called the image part, t 7→ φt is the deformation part, and t 7→ ft is the template part. The image part represents the temporal evolution that is not related to intensity changes, i.e., evolution of underlying geometry, whereas the template part is the evolution of the intensity. Both evolutions, which are combined in metamorphosis, are driven by the same underlying flow of dif- feomorphisms in GV . A important case is when the metamorphosis t 7→ (φt, ft) has a defor- mation part that solves the flow equation (1) and a template part is C1 in time. More precisely, L2 ([0, 1],X) denotes the space of functions in X that are square integrable, i.e.,
2 ζ(t, · ) ∈ X and t 7→ ζ(t, · ) X is in L ([0, 1], R). The norm on L2 ([0, 1],X) is then Z 1 2 1/2 kζk2 := ζ(t, · ) X dt . 0 We will also use the notation L2 ([0, 1],V × X) := L2 ([0, 1],V ) × L2 ([0, 1],X) .
7 Bearing in mind the above notation, for given (ν, ζ) ∈ L2 ([0, 1],V × X) and ν,ζ I0 ∈ X, define the curve t 7→ It , which is absolutely continuous on [0, 1], as the solution to d ν,ζ ν I (x) = ζ t, ϕ (x) dt t 0,t ν with ϕ0,t ∈ GV as in (2). (6) ν,ζ I0 (x) = I0(x)
ν ν,ζ The metamorphosis can now be parametrised as t 7→ (ϕ0,t,It ).
Indirect registration The indirect registration problem in section 3.2 can be approached by metamorphosis instead of LDDMM. Similar to LDDMM- based indirect image registration in [9], we define metamorphosis-based in- direct image registration as the minimization of the objective functional
2 J γ,τ ( · ; g): L ([0, 1],V × X) → R defined as γ τ J (ν, ζ; g) := kνk2 + kζk2 + L A W(ϕν ,Iν,ζ ), g (7) γ,τ 2 2 2 2 0,1 1 for given regularization parameters γ, τ ≥ 0, measured data g ∈ Y , and ν,ζ initial template I0 ∈ X that sets the initial condition I0 (x) := I0(x). Hence, performing metamorphosis-based indirect image registration of a template I0 against a target indirectly observed through data g amounts to solving (νb, ζb) ∈ arg min J γ,τ (ν, ζ; g). (8) (ν,ζ) The above always has a solution assuming the data discrepancy and the forward operator fulfills some weak requirements (see proposition4). From a solution we then obtain the following:
ν,ζ • Initial template: I0 ∈ X such that I0 := I0.
νb,ζb ν νb,ζb • Reconstruction: Final registered template f1 = W ϕ0b,1,I1 ∈ X. • Image trajectory: The evolution of both geometry and intensity of the ν νb,ζb template, given by t 7→ W ϕ0b,t,It . • Template trajectory: The evolution of intensities of the template, i.e., νb,ζb the part that does not include evolution of geometry: t 7→ It . • Deformation trajectory: The geometric evolution of the template, i.e., ν the part that does not include evolution of intensity: t 7→ W(ϕ0b,t,I0).
8 4.3 Regularising properties In the following we prove several properties (existence, stability and conver- gence) of metamorphosis-based indirect image registration, which are nec- essary if the approach is to constitute a well defined regularisation method 2 (notion defined in [12]). We set X := L (Ω, R) and Y a Hilbert space. Proposition 4 (Existence). Assume A: X → Y is continuous and the data discrepancy L( · , g): Y → R is weakly lower semi-continuous for any g ∈ Y . 2 Then, J γ,τ ( · , g): L ([0, 1],V × X) → R defined through (6) and (7) has a 2 2 minimizer in L ([0, 1],V × X) for any I0 ∈ L (Ω, R). Proof. We follow here the strategy to prove existence of minimal trajecto- ries for metamorphosis (as in [8] for instance). One considers a minimiz- ing sequence of J γ,τ ( · ; g), i.e., a sequence that converges to the infimum of J γ,τ ( · ; g) (such a sequence always exists). The idea is to prove that such a minimizing sequence has a sub-sequence that converges to a point in L2 ([0, 1],V × X), i.e., the infimum is contained in L2 ([0, 1],V × X) which proves existence of a minima. Bearing in mind the above, we start by considering a minimizing se- n n 2 quence (ν , ζ ) n ⊂ L ([0, 1],V × X) to J γ,τ ( · ; g), i.e., n n lim J γ,τ (ν , ζ ; g) = inf J γ,τ (ν, ζ; g). n→∞ ν,ζ
n 2 Since ν n ⊂ L ([0, 1],V ) is bounded, it has a sub-sequence that converges ∞ 2 n 2 to an element ν ∈ L ([0, 1],V ). Likewise, ζ n ⊂ L ([0, 1],X) has a sub- sequence that converges to an element ζ∞ ∈ L2 ([0, 1],X). Hence, with a slight abuse of notation, we conclude that
νn * ν∞ and ζn * ζ∞ as n → ∞.
The aim is now to prove existence of minimizers by showing that (ν∞, ζ∞) 2 is a minimizer to J γ,τ ( · ; g): L ([0, 1],V × X) → R. Before proceeding, we introduce some notation in order to simplify the expressions. Define
n νn,ζn n νn [ It := It and ϕs,t := ϕs,t for n ∈ N {∞}. (9)
Hence, assuming geometric group action (3) and using (2), we can write γ τ J (νn, ζn; g) = kνnk2 + kζnk2 + L A In ◦ ϕn , g γ,τ 2 2 2 2 1 1,0 S for n ∈ N {∞}. Assume next that the following holds:
n n ∞ ∞ I1 ◦ ϕ1,0 *I1 ◦ ϕ1,0 as n → ∞. (10)
9 The data discrepancy term L( · , g): Y → R is weakly lower semi continuous and the forward operator A: X → Y is continuous, so L( · , g) ◦ A is also weakly lower semi continuous and then (10) implies
L A(I∞ ◦ ϕ∞ ), g ≤ lim inf L(A(In ◦ ϕn ), g). (11) 1 1,0 n→∞ 1 1,0 Furthermore, from the weak convergences of νn and ζn, we get γ τ hγ τ i kν∞k2 + kζ∞k2 ≤ lim inf kνnk2 + kζnk2 . (12) 2 2 2 2 n→∞ 2 2 2 2 Hence, combining (11) and (12) we obtain
∞ ∞ n n J γ,τ (ν , ζ ; g) ≤ lim J γ,τ (ν , ζ ; g). n→∞
n n 2 Since (ν , ζ ) n ⊂ L ([0, 1],V × X) is a minimizing sequence, this yields ∞ ∞ J γ,τ (ν , ζ ; g) = inf J γ,τ (ν, ζ; g), (ν,ζ)∈L2([0,1],V ×X)
∞ ∞ 2 which proves (ν , ζ ) ∈ L ([0, 1],V × X) is a minimizer to J γ,τ ( · ; g). Hence, to finalize the proof we need to show that (10) holds. We start by observing that the solution of (6) can be written as
Z t n n n n It := I0 (x) + ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) ds for n ∈ N ∪ {∞}, (13) 0
n and note that (t, x) 7→ It (x) ∈ C([0, 1] × Ω, R). Next, we claim that
n ∞ ∞ I1 *I1 for some I1 ∈ X, which is equivalent to
lim hIn − I∞,Ji = 0 for any J ∈ L2(Ω, ). (14) n→∞ 1 1 R
To prove (14), note first that since continuous functions are dense in L2, it is enough to show (14) holds for J ∈ C0(Ω, R). Next, Z Z t n ∞ n n ∞ ∞ hI1 − I1 ,Ji = ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) − ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) J(x)dsdx (15) Ω 0 Z Z t n n n ∞ = ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) − ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) J(x)dsdx (16) Ω 0 Z Z t n n ∞ ∞ + ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) − ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) J(x)dsdx. (17) Ω 0
10 Let us now take a closer look at the term in (16): Z Z t n n n ∞ ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) − ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) J(x)dsdx Ω 0 Z Z t n n n = ζ (s, x)J ϕ0,s(x) Dϕ0,s(x) dsdx Ω 0 Z Z t ∞ ∞ ∞ − ζ (s, x)J ϕ0,s(x) Dϕ0,s(x) dsdx Ω 0 Z Z t n n n ∞ ∞ = ζ (s, x) J ϕ0,s(x) Dϕ0,s(x) − J ϕ0,s(x) Dϕ0,s(x) dsdx Ω 0 Z Z t ∞ n ∞ ∞ − ζ (s, x) − ζ (s, x) J ϕ0,s(x) Dϕ0,s(x) dsdx Ω 0 = hζn,J n − J ∞i − hζ∞ − ζn,J ∞i where J n ∈ L2 ([0, 1],X) is defined as n n n [ J (s, x) := J ϕs,0(x) Dϕs,0(x) for n ∈ N {∞}. (18) n ∞ n ∞ By proposition3 we know that ϕs,0 → ϕs,0 and Dϕs,0 → Dϕs,0 uniformly n ∞ on Ω. Since J is continuous on Ω, we conclude that kJ − J k2 tends to 0. Since ζn is bounded, we conclude that n n ∞ n n ∞ hζ ,J − J i ≤ kζ k2 · kJ − J k2 → 0. Furthermore, since ζn * ζ∞, we also get hζ∞ − ζn,J ∞i → 0. Hence, we have shown that (16) tends to zero, i.e., Z Z t n n n ∞ lim ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) − ζ s, ϕ0,s(x) J(x)dsdx = 0. n→∞ Ω 0 Finally, we consider the term in (17). Since ζn * ζ∞, we immediately obtain Z Z t n ∞ ∞ ∞ n ∞ ∞ ζ s, ϕs (x) − ζ s, ϕs (x) J(x)dsdx = ζ − ζ ,J → 0. Ω 0 To summarise, we have just proved that both terms (16) and (17) tend to 0 n ∞ as n → ∞, which implies that (14) holds, i.e., I1 *I1 . n n ∞ ∞ To prove (10), i.e., I1 ◦ ϕ1,0 *I1 ◦ ϕ1,0, we need to show that lim In ◦ ϕn − I∞ ◦ ϕ∞ ,J = 0 for any J ∈ L2(Ω, ), (19) n→∞ 1 1,0 1 1,0 R and as before, we may assume J ∈ C0(Ω, R). Using (18) we can express the term in (19) whose limit we seek as
n n ∞ ∞ hI1 ◦ ϕ1,0 − I1 ◦ ϕ1,0,Ji
n n ∞ n ∞ ∞ ≤ I1 ,J (1, · ) − J (1, · ) + I1 − I1 ,J (1, · ) n n ∞ n ∞ ∞ ≤ kI1 k · J (1, · ) − J (1, · ) + hI1 − I1 ,J (1, · )i .
11 n n n ∞ Since kI1 k is bounded (because kζ k is bounded) and since I1 *I1 (which we shoed before), all terms above tend to 0 as n → ∞, i.e., (19) holds. This concludes the proof of (10), which in turn implies the existence of a minimizer of J γ,τ ( · ; g). Our next result shows that the solution to the indirect registration prob- lem is (weakly) continuous w.r.t. variations in data, and as such, it is a kind of stability result.
Proposition 5 (Stability). Let {gk}k ⊂ Y and assume this sequence con- verges (in norm) to some g ∈ Y . Next, for each γ, τ > 0 and each k, define (νk, ζk) ∈ L2 ([0, 1],V × X) as
k k (ν , ζ ) = arg min J γ,τ (ν, ζ; gk). (ν,ζ)
Then there exists a sub sequence of (νk, ζk) that converges weakly to a min- imizer of J γ,τ ( · ; g) in (7).
k k 2 Proof. J γ,τ ( · ; gk) has a minimizer (ν , ζ ) ∈ L ([0, 1],V × X) for any gk ∈ k Y (proposition4). The idea is first to show that the sequences ( ν )k and k (ζ )k are bounded. Next, we show that there exists a weakly converging k k subsequence of (ν , ζ ) that converges to a minimizer (ν, ζ) of J γ,τ ( · ; g), which also exists due to proposition4. k k Since (ν , ζ ) minimizes J γ,τ ( · ; gk), by (7) we have 2 2 kνkk2 ≤ J ( · ; g )(νk, ζk) ≤ J ( · ; g )(0, 0) for each k. (20) 2 γ γ,τ k γ γ,τ k
ν ν,ζ Observe now that if ν = 0 and ζ = 0, then ϕ0,1 = Id by (1) and I1 = I0 by (6), so in particular