Uniform-penalty inversion of multiexponential decay data. II. Data spacing, T(2) data, systemic data errors, and diagnostics.

The basic method of UPEN (uniform penalty inversion of multiexponential decay data) is given in an earlier publication (Borgia et al., J. Magn. Reson. 132, 65-77 (1998)), which also discusses the effects of noise, constraints, and smoothing on the resolution or apparent resolution of features of a computed distribution of relaxation times. UPEN applies negative feedback to a regularization penalty, allowing stronger smoothing for a broad feature than for a sharp line. This avoids unnecessarily broadening the sharp line and/or breaking the wide peak or tail into several peaks that the relaxation data do not demand to be separate. The experimental and artificial data presented earlier were T(1) data, and all had fixed data spacings, uniform in log-time. However, for T(2) data, usually spaced uniformly in linear time, or for data spaced in any manner, we have found that the data spacing does not enter explicitly into the computation. The present work shows the extension of UPEN to T(2) data, including the averaging of data in windows and the use of the corresponding weighting factors in the computation. Measures are implemented to control portions of computed distributions extending beyond the data range. The input smoothing parameters in UPEN are normally fixed, rather than data dependent. A major problem arises, especially at high signal-to-noise ratios, when UPEN is applied to data sets with systematic errors due to instrumental nonidealities or adjustment problems. For instance, a relaxation curve for a wide line can be narrowed by an artificial downward bending of the relaxation curve. Diagnostic parameters are generated to help identify data problems, and the diagnostics are applied in several examples, with particular attention to the meaningful resolution of two closely spaced peaks in a distribution of relaxation times. Where feasible, processing with UPEN in nearly real time should help identify data problems while further instrument adjustments can still be made. The need for the nonnegative constraint is greatly reduced in UPEN, and preliminary processing without this constraint helps identify data sets for which application of the nonnegative constraint is too expensive in terms of error of fit for the data set to represent sums of decaying positive exponentials plus random noise. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.