The domain of inverse problems has experienced a rapid expansion, driven
by the increase in computing power and the progress in numerical
modeling. When I started working on this domain years ago, I became
somehow fr-
tratedtoseethatmyfriendsworkingonmodelingwhereproducingexistence,
uniqueness, and stability results for the solution of their equations,
but that I was most of the time limited, because of the nonlinearity of
the problem, to
provethatmyleastsquaresobjectivefunctionwasdi?erentiable....Butwith my
experience growing, I became convinced that, after the inverse problem
has been properly trimmed, the ?nal least squares problem, the one
solved on the computer, should be Quadratically (Q)-wellposed, thatis,
both we- posed and optimizable: optimizability ensures that a global
minimizer of the least squares function can actually be found using
e?cient local optimization algorithms, and wellposedness that this
minimizer is stable with respect to perturbation of the data. But the
vast majority of inverse problems are nonlinear, and the clas- cal
mathematical tools available for their analysis fail to bring answers to
these crucial questions: for example, compactness will ensure existence,
but provides no uniqueness results, and brings no information on the
presence or absenceofparasiticlocalminimaorstationarypoints..