1 Introduction
Inverse source scattering problem is concerned with recovering the unknown source from near-field or far-field data away from its support. Such problem has generated tremendous interest due to its wide applications in scientific and engineering fields such as seismology, telecommunications, medical imaging, antenna synthesis, radar technology, and magnetoencephalography [1, 3, 8, 15]. However, the non-uniqueness of the inverse source problem at a single frequency, caused by the existence of non-radiating sources, poses a challenge [9, 12]. Consequently, additional information is required for a unique determination of the source. To resolve this issue, the use of multi-frequency data has been realized to be an effective approach to regain the uniqueness and achieve enhanced stability [7, 8, 11, 24].
In many applications, the source is often considered as a random field due to uncertainties in the surrounding environment or random measurement noise [2]. The presence of randomness introduces additional challenges compared to deterministic source scattering. Specifically, the regularities of wave fields tend to be lower, and the measurements become statistical data.
Inverse source problems driven by Wiener process have been extensively investigated [4, 5, 6, 19, 23].
In recent studies, uniqueness of inverse source problems have been studied in [17, 18, 21] by assuming the source to be a generalized Gaussian random field.
The covariance of such random field is a classical pseudo-differential operator with a principal symbol taking the form , where is called micro-correlation strength. This model encompasses various important stochastic processes, including white noise, fractional Brownian motion, and Markov fields [16]. Compared with the many uniqueness results of the inverse random source problems, the stability has been much less studied.
To the best of our knowledge, the only existing stability results were obtained in [20, 22] driven by Wiener process. The corresponding stability
for the generalized Gaussian random field remains unsolved.
In numerical experiments in [4, 19], it has been observed that the ill-posedness of the inverse random source problem can be overcome by using multi-frequency data which yields increasing stability, i.e.,
as the frequency increases the inverse problem becomes more stable. The goal of this work is to mathematical verify the increasing stability with a generalized Gaussian random field. Specifically, consider the stochastic Helmholtz equation
(1.1) |
|
|
|
where is the wavenumber. The source function is a microlocally isotropic general Gaussian random field of order in a bounded Lipschitz domain (see Section 2 for a detailed definition). The wave field is required to satisfy the Sommerfeld radiation condition
(1.2) |
|
|
|
Let with boundary and assume that . The inverse problem is to determine the principle symbol of from either the near-field data on or far-field data.
Compared with the deterministic case, new challenges arise due to the roughness and randomness of the source. The well-posedness of the direct problem
(1.1)–(1.2) has been discussed in [18]. However, it is not clear if the solution can be represented by the convolution of the Green function
and the source as in the classical setting. By studying the regularity of the Green function, we establish an explicit integral representation of the solution which holds pointwisely. As a consequence, we obtain an enhanced regularity result.
The analysis of the inverse problem employs microlocal analysis to achieve an estimate for the Fourier transform of the micro-correlation strength by the near-field correlation data and a high-frequency tail. Next, we show that the correlation data is analytic and derive an upper bound with respect to complex wave number.
The stability estimate follows by an application of a novel analytic continuation developed in [25]. For the case of far-field data, the stability estimate can be derived by investigating the
correlation of the far-field data. The stability has a unified form which consists of the Lipschitz data discrepancy and a logarithmic stability, where the latter
decreases as the frequency increases.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the definition and some properties of the microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function. In Section 3, we derive a regularity result for the Green function of the Helmholtz equation which leads to an explicit integral representation of the direct problem. The main increasing stability results are presented in Section 4 and Section 5 for near-field data and far-field data, respectively. A conclusion is given in Section 6. Throughout this paper, stands for , where is a generic constant whose special value is not required but should be clear from the context.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we state the properties of microlocally isotropic generalized Gaussian random functions. Let be a complete probability space. Denote the test function space by , which consists of smooth functions with compact supports in . Then the dual space of is denoted as . A scalar field is said to be a real-valued generalized Gaussian random function if is a distribution such that
for each the path is a linear functional on , and
is a real-valued Gaussian random variable for all . The expectation of is a generalized function defined by
|
|
|
and the covariance is a bilinear form given by
|
|
|
Then define the covariance operator by
|
|
|
which is associated with a Schwartz kernel denoted by as follows
|
|
|
In this paper, the random source is assumed to be characterized by a special class of generalized Gaussian random functions as follows.
Definition 2.1.
A generalized Gaussian random function with zero expectation is called microlocally isotropic of order in the domain , if for almost surely and its covariance operator is a classical pseudo-differential operator with the principal symbol where and .
The smooth function is called the micro-correlation strength of the random function . Let be the symbol of . The operator can be represented by
|
|
|
where stands for the Fourier transform of defined by
The kernel can be represented as an oscillatory integral of the form
(2.1) |
|
|
|
We introduce the following regularity result in [21] for microlocally isotropic Gaussian random functions.
Lemma 2.1.
Let be a microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function of order . Then almost surely for all and .
By Sobolev embedding theorem, Lemma 2.1 gives the following corollary.
Corollary 2.1.
Let be a microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function of order . Suppose is a Lipschitz domain such that . For any satisfying , we have almost surely with .
3 Direct problem
In this section, we investigate the direct scattering problem. The Green function of the Helmholtz equation has the explicit form
(3.3) |
|
|
|
where is the Hankel function of the first kind with order zero.
According to Corollary 2.1, for , the source with some almost surely. Hence, the scattering problem (1.1)-(1.2) is classical which admits a unique solution with the following explicit integral form
(3.4) |
|
|
|
However, for , Lemma 2.1 shows that such source is too rough to exist pointwisely which should be taken as distribution. In this case, the following theorem proved in [18] gives the well-posedness and regularity of the direct problem.
Theorem 3.1.
Let be a microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function of order . The problem (1.1)-(1.2) is well-posed and the unique solution can be represented by (3.3) in sense of distributions, which satisfies almost surely for any and
|
|
|
For , by classical acoustic wave scattering theory we know that the solution of the direct problem admits a pointwise explicit integral representation (3.4).
However, for , we only know that (3.4) holds in sense of distributions. In the rest of this section, we show that (3.4) holds
pointwisely, which implies .
The following lemma is useful in the subsequent analysis.
Lemma 3.1.
Supposing that and , we have that the inequalities
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
hold for .
Proof.
Without loss of gengerality, assume . Letting we obtain
|
|
|
which proves the first inequality. The second inequality can be proven similarly.
Lemma 3.2.
For any we have with , .
Proof.
Consider the Slobodeckij semi-norm
|
|
|
The norm of can be expressed by
|
|
|
Without loss of generality, we assume .
Firstly we consider the case when . Notice
|
|
|
which gives with . Therefore, we only need to show
|
|
|
for and .
Clearly, we only need to consider the term which has higher singularity. Hence, it suffices to show
|
|
|
for and . Using the fractional Leibniz rule in [14] gives
(3.5) |
|
|
|
|
It is straightforward to verify , which implies
(3.6) |
|
|
|
Combining (3.5)–(3.6), we only need to prove
|
|
|
for and .
It is easy to verify
|
|
|
where .
Applying Sobolev embedding theorem yields
(3.7) |
|
|
|
where and .
Next we will show that
(3.8) |
|
|
|
for and . To this end, direct calculations imply
|
|
|
|
(3.9) |
|
|
|
|
Applying Lemma 3.1 gives
(3.10) |
|
|
|
when and . Inserting (3.10) into (3.9) gives (3.8).
Applying fractional Leibniz rule yields
(3.11) |
|
|
|
where . We have known that
(3.12) |
|
|
|
for , and
(3.13) |
|
|
|
for , . Obviously, it can be verified
(3.14) |
|
|
|
with . Hence, we can choose and which gives
|
|
|
Then by combining (3.11)–(3.14) we arrive at
|
|
|
which completes the proof when .
When , the discussion is analogous as by noticing the asymptotic relations
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
when . We omit it for brevity.
Combining Lemma 2.1 and 3.2, we have the following regularity result.
Theorem 3.2.
Let be a microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function of order .
The solution to the direct scattering problem admits the following representation which holds pointwisely
(3.15) |
|
|
|
Moreover, almost surely.
Proof.
For any fixed , combining Lemma 2.1 and 3.2 gives that (3.15) is well-defined, i.e.
(3.16) |
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
Now we show . Recalling (3.3), there exists a sufficient large such that and
|
|
|
where is a constant independent of and . Hence for any , there holds
(3.17) |
|
|
|
where is a constant independent of . For any , we have
(3.18) |
|
|
|
Combining (3.16)–(3.18) we complete the proof.
It can be verified that using the regularity result in Theorem 4.1 and Sobolev embedding theorem one can only have when . Hence, the above theorem enhances the regularity result in Theorem 4.1.
4 Inverse problem using near-field data
In this section, we derive the stability estimate by near-field data. Denote .
Assume that satisfies the following assumption.
Assumption (A). The random source is a real-valued microlocally isotropic Gaussian random function of order . The covariance operator has the symbol with the principal symbol satisfying (i) for ; (ii) for and ; (iii) for and . Here stands for a constant.
We first give a bound with a high frequency tail for the Fourier transform of in terms of the source function.
Recalling the definitions in Section 2, the covariance of can be expressed by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, we obtain
|
|
|
Taking and with , one arrives at
(4.1) |
|
|
|
Next, we bound the term by the correlation data on .
Multiplying the governing equation (1.1) by the plane wave and integrating by parts yield
(4.2) |
|
|
|
Taking expectation gives that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.3) |
|
|
|
|
where . By inserting (4.3) into (4.1) and noticing
|
|
|
we derive the inequality
(4.4) |
|
|
|
which holds for all . For convenience, denote
|
|
|
with and . From the equation (1.1) and the Sommerfeld radiation condition (1.2), it can be verified that
|
|
|
where the notation is used to exhibit the dependence of the solution on the wavenumber . Therefore, the definition of can be extended to as
|
|
|
Consider the multi-frequency data characterized as
|
|
|
where is the upper bound of the frequency. Denote a sectorial domain by .
In what follows, we show that is analytic and has an upper bound for .
We only consider the term since the discussions for are similar. Recalling (3.15), we deduce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we denote
|
|
|
Obviously, is analytic with respective to . In order to show is also analytic, we shall verify the following estimates
(4.5) |
|
|
|
|
(4.6) |
|
|
|
|
which hold uniformly with respect to . As a consequence, the derivative can be taken under the integral.
We only prove (4.5), since (4.6) can be proven similarly. It is necessary to discuss the singularity of . Inspired by [10], we show in the following lemma that the kernel can be represented as the sum of a singular part and a continuous remainder which is bounded under assumption (A).
Lemma 4.1.
Let the random function satisfy assumption (A). The covariance function has the following form:
(i) If with ,
|
|
|
where is a constant dependent on and with .
(ii)
If ,
|
|
|
where is a constant dependent on and with .
(iii)
If ,
|
|
|
where is a constant dependent on and with .
For all of the above three cases, we have
|
|
|
Proof.
We first consider the case .
Choose a radially symmetric cut-off function such that when . Recalling (2.1) , we deduce
|
|
|
|
(4.7) |
|
|
|
|
with the test function . Notice that with and the bound
(4.8) |
|
|
|
Denote . Obviously is smooth and compactly supported with respect to . Recalling vanishes when , then assumption (A) implies
|
|
|
Take such that and . Applying assumption (A) and Hausdorff-Young inequality gives the inequality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above inequality holds uniformly with respect to if and only if which can be satisfied by choosing and . Then using Sobolev embedding theorem gives with such that . When with , we can choose sufficiently large such that is close to which implies can be chosen as and . Furthermore, one has and
(4.9) |
|
|
|
The third term in (4.7) can be rewritten as
|
|
|
Now we claim when ,
(4.10) |
|
|
|
where is a constant only dependent on and . In fact, direct calculation gives
|
|
|
|
Notice that and choose to be a radially symmetric function. We have that
|
|
|
is a finite constant. As , we have that
|
|
|
is smooth and bounded with respect to .
In conclusion, when , by combining (4.7)–(4.10) we have
|
|
|
which gives
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
for .
Then we consider the case . Denote by the Gamma function One has the identity
(4.11) |
|
|
|
One also has
(4.12) |
|
|
|
Applying (4.11)–(4.12) gives
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.13) |
|
|
|
where . Moreover, is smooth. Combining (4.7)–(4.9) and (4.13) yields
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
for .
At last, consider the case when . Rewrite the right-hand side of (4.7) as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letting in, we obtain
|
|
|
(4.14) |
|
|
|
with constants . Notice that
(4.15) |
|
|
|
is smooth.
Combining (4.7)–(4.9) and (4.14)–(4.15) yields
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
for .
In what follows, we show that is bounded with respect to and similar arguments apply to .
We consider the following two situations.
Case 1. Let and . We have from Lemma 4.1 that
|
|
|
which yields that the kernel is continuous or weakly singular. Therefore, (4.5) holds for and thus is analytic. Moreover, when , we further obtain the following bound
|
|
|
|
(4.16) |
|
|
|
|
To proceed, noting that the Green function takes different forms for and , we discuss the following two cases.
If , a direct calculation gives
(4.17) |
|
|
|
We show that
(4.18) |
|
|
|
In fact, we only need to estimate the term with highest singularity. To this end, with the help of Lemma 3.1 we have the following estimate
|
|
|
(4.19) |
|
|
|
For other parts in right-hand side of (4.16), we have simialr estimates. Combining (4.16) and (4.19) yields (4.18).
When , by the following integral form of the Hankel function [13]
(4.20) |
|
|
|
we obtain
|
|
|
Then in a similar way as the derivation of (4.18), we can obtain
(4.21) |
|
|
|
Combining (4.18) and (4.21) gives the estimate
(4.22) |
|
|
|
Case 2. When , Lemma 4.1 shows which is still weakly singular. Therefore, we can apply the second inequality of Lemma 3.1 to verify satisfies the inequalities (4.22).
Combining the above arguments, we arrive at the following lemma which provides the analyticity and boundedness of the data with respect to .
Lemma 4.2.
Suppose that the random function satisfies assumption (A). We have that is analytic with respective to . Furthermore, the following estimates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hold for .
Remark 4.1.
(i) Conclusions like Lemma 4.2 also hold for , after analogous discussions.
(ii) We have to use Lemma 3.1 to derive inequality (4.19).
Indeed, for and , by a direction calculation one has
|
|
|
However, when , the right-hand side of the above inequality tends to infinity. Based on this reason, we use Lemma 3.1 to estimate this integral.
The following unique continuation argument [11] is useful in the subsequent analysis.
Lemma 4.3.
Let be an analytic function in and continuous in . If
|
|
|
with constants , then there exists a function satisfying
|
|
|
such that
|
|
|
Combining Lemma 4.2–4.3 yields the following conclusion.
Lemma 4.4.
Let satisfy assumption (A). Then we have the estimte
|
|
|
with the function satisfying
(4.25) |
|
|
|
.
Proof.
Denote . We have that and is analytic and continuous for .
It follows from Lemma 4.2 when ,
|
|
|
which yields
|
|
|
Obviously, for , one has . Applying Lemma 4.4 to gives
|
|
|
where satisfies (4.25). Thus, we have
|
|
|
which completes the proof.
Denote with . We are now in a position to state the increasing stability result of inverse random source problem. The proof adopts the argument of analytic continuation developed in [25].
Theorem 4.1.
Let the random function satisfy assumption (A) and assume . We have the following stability estimate
(4.26) |
|
|
|
with .
Proof.
Without losing generality, we assume . Then take
|
|
|
If , we have . Then for , applying Lemma 4.4 yields
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noticing that implies
|
|
|
Then we get
(4.27) |
|
|
|
|
Here we have used where . Combining (4.4) and (4.27) gives the estimte
|
|
|
which yields
(4.28) |
|
|
|
By the condition , we obtain
(4.29) |
|
|
|
Take and such that .
Therefore, together with (4.28)–(4.29) we have the inequality
|
|
|
|
where . Taking and , we have
(4.30) |
|
|
|
If , it is straightforward to get
|
|
|
|
(4.31) |
|
|
|
|
Combining (4.30) and (4.31), we complete the proof.
The stability estimate (4.26) consists of the Lipschitz data discrepancy and a logarithmic stability. The latter illustrates the ill-posedness of the inverse source
problem. Observe that as the upper bound of the frequency increases, the logarithmic stability decreases which leads to the improvement of the stability estimate.
Clearly, the stability estimate (4.26) implies the uniqueness of the inverse problem.
5 Inverse problem using far-field data data
In this section, we consider using the far-field data given by
(5.1) |
|
|
|
Here is a constant dependent on the dimension . According to [18], we have for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence we have
|
|
|
which gives
|
|
|
Based on the above estimate,
we introduce the data discrepancy in a finite interval with as follows
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
As the source function is real-valued, we have and then .
Hence, we can analytically extend from to as follows
|
|
|
by noticing that for
|
|
|
Recall . In order to apply Lemma 4.3 for in , we shall show is analytic and bounded for .
Recalling (5.1), for , we have
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with .
Lemma 4.1 gives that the kernel is weakly singular and
|
|
|
Hence, we have the estimate
(5.2) |
|
|
|
The above arguments guarantee the analyticity and boundedness of the data. In summary, we arrive at the following lemma.
Lemma 5.1.
Suppose that the random field satisfies assumption (A). We have that is analytic with respect to with the following upper bound
|
|
|
Using Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 5.1 we have the following lemma.
Lemma 5.2.
Let satisfy assumption (A). Then we have the estimte
|
|
|
with the function satisfying
|
|
|
.
Following the arguments in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in a straightforward way, we have the following increasing stability estimate by far-field data. The proof is omitted for
brevity.
Theorem 5.1.
Let the random function satisfies assumption (A) and assume . Then there holds the inequality
(5.3) |
|
|
|
where .