scattering problem in pseudo-chiral media and a practical reconstruction method
Tiexiang Li
School of Mathematics, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, People’s Republic of China.
E-mail: txli@seu.edu.cn
Tsung-Ming Huang
Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 116, Taiwan.
E-mail: min@ntnu.edu.tw
Wen-Wei Lin
Department of Applied Mathematics, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.
E-mail: wwlin@math.nctu.edu.tw
Jenn-Nan Wang
Institute of Applied Mathematical Sciences, NCTS, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan.
E-mail: jnwang@math.ntu.edu.tw
Abstract. In this paper, we consider the two-dimensional Maxwell’s equations with the TM mode in pseudo-chiral media. The system can be reduced to the acoustic equation with a negative index of refraction. We first study the transmission eigenvalue problem (TEP) for this equation. By the continuous finite element method, we discretize the reduced equation and transform the study of TEP to a quadratic eigenvalue problem by deflating all nonphysical zeros. We then estimate half of the eigenvalues are negative with order of O(1) and the other half of eigenvalues are positive with order of O(102). In the second part of the paper, we present a practical numerical method to reconstruct the support of the inhomogeneity by the near-field measurements, i.e., Cauchy data. Based on the linear sampling method, we propose the truncated singular value decomposition to solve the ill-posed near-field integral equation, at one wave number which is not a transmission eigenvalue. By carefully chosen an indicator function, this method produce different jumps for the sampling points inside and outside the support. Numerical results show that our method is able to reconstruct the support reliably.
Keywords: Two-dimensional transmission eigenvalue problem, pseudo-chiral model,
transverse magnetic mode, linear sampling method, singular value decomposition
1. Introduction
The transmission eigenvalue problem (TEP) has attracted a lot of attention recently in the study of direct/inverse scattering problems in inhomogeneous media [3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11,12, 20, 25]. The existence of transmission eigenvalues is intimately connected to the
”bijectivity” of the far-field operator, which is crucial in some reconstruction methods such as the linear sampling method (LSM) [1, 8] and the factorization method [21].
Conversely, the transmission eigenvalues (also eigenvalues) carry the information of the scatterer and can be estimated by the far-field data [2] or the near-field data (Cauchy data) [27]. This observation leads to the development of some reconstruction methods using the transmission eigenvalues or eigenvalues, see for example, [10, 29]. In [29], an eigenvalue method using multiple frequency near-field data (EM2F) was proposed to detect Dirichlet or transmission eigenvalues and to reconstruct the support of the scatterer.
In this paper, we would like to propose a reliable numerical method to investigate the distribution of transmission eigenvalues for the 2d acoustic equation with an inhomogeneous index of refraction. The model is derived from the Maxwell’s equations with the TM mode in pseudo-chiral media. It turns out the index of refraction of the reduced acoustic equation decreases to negative infinity when we increase the charity parameter. Precisely, we consider the TEP
∆u + λε(x)u = 0, in D, (1a)
∆v + λv = 0, in D, (1b)
u − v = 0, on ∂D, (1c)
∂u
∂ν − ∂v
∂ν = 0, on ∂D (1d)
for the scattering of acoustic wave on a bounded and simply connected inhomogeneous domain D ⊆ R2, where ν is the outer normal to the smooth boundary ∂D, u, v ∈ L2(D) with u−v ∈ H02(D) = {w ∈ H2|w = 0,∂w∂ν = 0}, and ε(x) is the index of refraction. Any λ ∈ C such that (1) has nontrivial solutions u and v is called a transmission eigenvalue and u, v are called the corresponding transmission eigenfunctions for D .
Equation (1a) can be considered as a reduced Maxwell’s equations with transverse magnetic (TM) mode. For the standard Maxwell’s equations, ε(x) is the electric permittivity corresponding to the product of the dielectric constant and the free-space dielectric constant. In practice, ε can not be taken as large as we wish. In [23]
where the Maxwell’s equations for Tellegen media is studied, ε(x) is the sum of the electric permittivity and the square of Tellegen parameter. By choosing large Tellegen parameter, we can enlarge the parameter ε(x) as we want. On the contrary, here ε(x) is the sum of the electric permittivity minus the square of pseudo-chiral media parameters. Therefore, by selecting the pseudo-chiral parameters sufficiently large, ε(x) becomes negative (see Section 2below).
In recent years, several papers have been devoted to developing efficient algorithms
for computing transmission eigenvalues of 2d/3d TEP [3, 11, 14, 16, 17,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27]. Three finite element methods (FEMs) and a coupled boundary element method were developed to solve the 2d/3d TEP in [11, 14, 17] (see the book [30] for more details). Two iterative methods and the corresponding convergence analysis were given in [28]. In [17], a mixed finite element method for 2d TEP was proposed, which leads to a non-Hermitian quadratic eigenvalue problem (QEP) that was solved by an adaptive Arnoldi method. Furthermore, a multilevel correction method was used to reduce the solution of TEP into some linear boundary value problems which could be solved by the multigrid method [18]. For results related to our current work, in [23, 24], the TEP for general inhomogeneous media are discretized into QEP with symmetric coefficient matrices. For such QEP, a secant-type iteration for computing several smallest positive transmission eigenvalues accurately was proposed in [24], and a quadratic Jacobi-Davidson method with nonequivalent deflation technique for computing a large number positive transmission eigenvalues was developed in [23].
Remind that the index of refraction ε(x) increases to infinity as we increase the Tellegen parameter. Numerical simulations demonstrate that the positive transmission eigenvalues are densely distributed in an interval near the origin. Similar to the method in [23], the TEP (1) is discretized into a QEP and a quadratic Jacobi-Davidson method with nonequivalence deflation is applied to compute a large number of positive eigenvalues. It turns out in the case here there exists an eigenvalue-free interval near the origin. The existence of the eigenvalue-free interval motivates us to study the reconstruction of the support of ε(x) from the near-field data in the spirit of LSM.
Corresponding to the TEP(1), the scattering problem is described by
∆u + k2ε(x)u = 0, in R2\ {x0}, (2a)
u = ui+ us, (2b)
r→∞lim
√r ∂us
∂r − ikus
= 0, (2c)
where D := supp(ε(x) − 1) and ui is the incident field due to a point source at x0, i.e., ui(x, x0) := Φ(x, x0), x0 ∈ C, (3) where Φ(x, x0) = 4iH0(0)(k|x − x0|), the fundamental solution of the Helmholtz equation in R2.
Our reconstruction method is based on the set up in [29]. We assume that the target D is inside some domain Ω which itself is inside a curve C (see Figure1). Suppose that usis measured on Γ = ∂Ω for all point sources x on C. We define the near-field operator N : L2(Γ) → L2(C) for v ∈ L2(Γ) by
(N v)(x) = Z
Γ
us(y, x)v(y)ds(y), x ∈ C. (4) The LSM with near-field data relies on solving the ill-posed integral equations
(N v)(x) = Φ(x, z) for all x ∈ C, (5)
Figure 1. The target D is inside some domain Ω (Γ := ∂Ω) which itself is surrounded by a curve C. The scattered field us is due to the scattering of the incident field ui having a point source at x0∈ C.
where z ∈ T is a sampling point and T is a sampling domain inside Ω containing the target D (see Figure 1). In general, the above ill-posed equation do not have a solution.
The following theorem serves as the backbone of the LSM.
Theorem 1.1. [8, 7, 29] Assume that λ = k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue of (1).
Let N be the near-field operator defined by (4).
• If z ∈ D, then there exists a convergent sequence vn in L2(D), such that
n→∞lim N vn= Φ(·, z).
• If z ∈ Ω \ D, then for every sequence vn satisfying
n→∞lim N vn= Φ(·, z), we have
n→∞lim ||vn||L2(D)= ∞.
Our reconstruction method is a direct application of Theorem1.1. By this theorem, we can see that if k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue then we can determine whether z ∈ D or z ∈ Ω \ D from the behaviors of the solutions to (4). Since there exists an eigenvalue-free interval near the origin in TEP (1), we choose a k near the origin so that k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue, we then discretize the integral equation (5). The strategy here is to choose m points x1, · · · , xm ∈ C forming a m-vector b = [Φ(x1, z), · · · , Φ(xm, z)]> ∈ Cm and n unknowns [v(y1), · · · , v(yn)]> := v satisfying the linear system
Av = b. (6)
The idea is to take m ≥ n, i.e., (6) is overdetermined. To determine whether z ∈ D or z ∈ Ω \ D, we look at the distance between the vector b and the space A = span(A), the subspace spanned by the columns of A, namely,
dist(b, A) ≡ min
v∈Cn||Av − b||2.
If dist(b, A) > 0, then, intuitively, any ”solution” v satisfying (6) must contain some sufficiently large components. Mimicing the second case of Theorem1.1, we thus assign z ∈ Ω \ D. On the other hand, if dist(b, A) = 0, i.e., b ∈ A, then the norm of v is clearly finite. We thus say that z ∈ D in view of the first case of Theorem 1.1. An easy application of truncated SVD will quickly determine the value of dist(b, A). Our criterion is very simple and easily to be implemented.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we demonstrate the derivation of 2d TEP (1) from the Maxwell’s equations with TM mode in pseudo-chiral media.
A corresponding discretized QEP and its spectral analysis are given in Section 3. In Section 4, a practical numerical method based on the LSM and truncated SVD for the reconstruction of the the target D is developed. Related numerical results are presented in Section 5. A concluding remark is given in Section 6. Finally, in Appendix A, we present a framework of solving the direct scattering problem using FEM. The purpose of solving the direct problem is to obtain synthetic data for numerical simulations.
2. Maxwell’s equations with the TM mode in pseudo-chiral media
Physically, the governing equations for the propagation of electromagnetic wave in bi- isotropic materials with complex media is modeled by the 3d source-free frequency domain Maxwell’s equations
∇ × E = ik (µH + ζE) , (7a)
∇ × H = −ik (εrE + ξH) , (7b)
where E and H are the electronic field and magnetic field respectively, k is the frequency, εr and µ are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability respectively, ξ and ζ are 3- by-3 magnetoelectric parameter matrices in various forms for describing different types of complex media.
We consider E and H in (7) in the transversal magnetic (TM) mode as
E = [0, 0, E3(x)]>, H = [H1(x), H2(x), 0]> (8) with x = (x1, x2)> ∈ R2, ζ and ξ are pseudo-chiral media of the forms
ζ =
0 0 ζ1
0 0 ζ2
−ζ1 −ζ2 0
, ξ =
0 0 ξ1
0 0 ξ2
−ξ1 −ξ2 0
(9)
with ξ1 = ζ1 = iγ1, ξ2 = ζ2 = iγ2, and γ1, γ2 being real numbers. We assume in this paper µ = 1. Then the equation (7a) can be simplified to
∂x2E3
−∂x1E3 0
= ik
H1
H2 0
+
ζ1E3
ζ2E3 0
. (10)
Substituting (10) into (7b) yields
(ik)−1
0 0
−
∂2
∂x21 + ∂x∂22 2
E3
−
0 0
∂
∂x1 (ζ2E3) − ∂x∂
2 (ζ1E3)
= − ik
εr
0 0 E3
−
0 0 ξ1H1 + ξ2H2
, which implies that
− ∆E3
= k2
εrE3− ξ1
(ik)−1 ∂
∂x2E3− ζ1E3
+ ξ2
(ik)−1 ∂
∂x1E3+ ζ2E3
+ ik
∂
∂x1 (ζ2E3) − ∂
∂x2(ζ1E3)
= k2(εr+ ξ1ζ1+ ξ2ζ2) E3+ ik
∂
∂x1 (ζ2E3) − ∂
∂x2 (ζ1E3) + ξ1 ∂
∂x2E3− ξ2 ∂
∂x1E3
=k2(εr− γ12− γ22)E3
=k2εE3
with ε = εr− (γ12+ γ22).
Let E0 = [0, 0, E0,3(x)]> and H0 = [H0,1(x), H0,2(x), 0]> be, respectively, the electronic and magnetic plane waves with TM mode in vacuum which are governed by the free Maxwell’s equations
∇ × E0 = ikµ0H0, (11a)
∇ × H0 = −ikε0E0 (11b)
with ε0 = µ0 = 1. We now suppose the Maxwell’s equations (7) and (11) are defined on a cylindrical set D × R satisfying the boundary conditions
E ×ν = Ee 0×ν,e (12a)
(H + ζE) ×ν = He 0×ν,e (12b)
whereν = [νe 1, ν2, 0]> = [ν, 0]>is the outer unit normal to the smooth boundary ∂D×R.
It is easily seen from (12a) that the Dirchlet boundary condition
E3 = E0,3 on ∂D (13a)
holds. Multiplying (12b) by ik and using (11a) we get the Neumann boundary condition
∇ × E ×ν = ∇ × Ee 0×ν,e i.e.,
∂E3
∂ν = ∂E0,3
∂ν on ∂D. (13b)
In view of the boundary conditions (13a), (13b), choosing u = E3 and v = E0,3, we arrive at the TEP (1) with λ = k2 and ε(x) = εr− (γ12+ γ22). The index of refraction will become negative as long as either |γ1| or |γ2| are sufficiently large.
3. Spectral analysis of discretized TEP
In this section, we first briefly introduce the discretized TEP and give its spectral analysis. Let {φi}ni=1 and {ψi}mi=1 be standard nodal bases for spaces of continuous piecewise linear functions on D ⊂ R2, that have vanishing DoF on ∂D and D, respectively, where DoF denotes the degree of freedom. Applying the standard piecewise linear FEM (we refer to [11] for details) to (1) with
u =
n
X
i=1
uiφi+
m
X
i=1
wiψi, (14a)
v =
n
X
i=1
viφi+
m
X
i=1
wiψi. (14b)
Hereafter, we denote 0 and I as a zero matrix/submatrix and the identity matrix, respectively, with appropriate dimensions if it is clear in the context. Now, setting u = [u1, · · · , un]>, v = [v1, · · · , vn]> and w = [w1, · · · , wm]> appeared in (14), we can derive a generalized eigenvalue problem (GEP)
L(λ)z = (A − λB)z = 0, (15)
in which λ = k2, where
A =
K 0 E
0 K E
E> −E> 0
, B =
−Mε 0 −Fε
0 M1 F1
−Fε> −F1> −Gε− G1
, z =
u v w
(16)
with K, E, M1, Mε, F1, Fε, G1 and Gε being given in Table1. Here, A 0 means A is symmetric positive definite.
We now define
M = Mε+ M1 0, G = Gε+ G1 0, F = Fε+ F1, (17a) K = K − EGb −1F>, Mc1 = M1− F1G−1F>, M = M − F Gc −1F>, (17b) and
S =h
K E
i
, T1 =h
M1 F1
i
, M =
"
M F
F> G
#
. (17c)
stiffness matrix for interior meshes K = [(∇φi, ∇φj)] 0 ∈ Rn×n stiffness matrix for
E = [(∇φi, ∇ψj)] ∈ Rn×m interior/boundary meshes
mass matrices for interior meshes M1 = [(φi, φj)] 0 ∈ Rn×n Mε = [−(εφi, φj)] 0 ∈ Rn×n mass matrices for interior/boundary meshes F1 = [(φi, ψj)] ∈ Rn×m
Fε= [−(εφi, ψj)] ∈ Rn×m mass matrices for boundary meshes G1 = [(ψi, ψj)] 0 ∈ Rm×m
Gε = [−(εψi, ψj)] 0 ∈ Rm×m
Table 1. Stiffness and mass matrices with ε(x) < 0 for x ∈ ¯D.
Lemma 3.1. Let M and cM be defined in (17a), (17b). Then M, cM 0.
Proof. Because
"
M1 F1 F1> G1
#
0,
"
Mε Fε Fε> Gε
#
0, we see that
M =
"
M F
F> G
#
=
"
M1 F1 F1> G1
# +
"
Mε Fε Fε> Gε
#
0.
On the other hand, observe that
0 ≺
"
I −F G−1
0 I
# "
M F
F> G
# "
I 0
−G−1F> I
#
=
"
Mc 0
0 G
# ,
which implies cM 0.
Theorem 3.2. For λ 6= 0, the GEP (15) can be reduced to the following QEP
Q(λ)p = (λ2A2− λA1− A0)p = 0, (18) where p = u − v, A2, A1 and A0 are all n × n symmetric matrices given by
A2 = M1− cM1Mc−1Mc1>− F1G−1F1> (19a)
= M1− T1M−1T1>,
A1 = K − bK cM−1Mc1>− cM1Mc−1Kb>− EG−1F1>− F1G−1E> (19b)
= K − SM−1T1>− T1M−1S>,
A0 = bK cM−1Kb>+ EG−1E> (19c)
= SM−1S>.
Proof. By (16), subtracting the 1st equation by the 2nd equation in (15), and rewriting the 3rd equation in (15) we have
"
K E>
# p − λ
"
M1 F1>
#
p = −λ
"
Mε+ M1 Fε+ F1 Fε>+ F1> Gε+ G1
# "
u v
#
. (20)
On the other hand, from the 1st equation of (15) and the 1st equation of (20), we have h
K Ei
"
u w
#
− λh
M1 F1i
"
u w
#
+ λM1p = Kp. (21)
From (17a) and (17c), equations (20) and (21) can be rewritten as
(S − λT1)>p = −λM
"
u w
#
, (22a)
(S − λT1)
"
u w
#
+ λM1p = Kp. (22b)
Expressing
"
u w
#
in terms of p in (22a) and plugging it into (22b), we end up with a QEP
λ2M1− (S − λT1)M−1(S − λT1)> p = λKp. (23) Rewriting (23) as
λ2(M1− T1M−1T1>) + λ(−K + SM−1T1>+ T1M−1S>) − SM−1S> p = 0 and using the fact that
M−1 =
"
M F
F> G
#−1
=
"
Mc−1 0
−G−1F>Mc−1 G−1
# "
I −F G−1
0 I
# .
We can show by careful calculation that the coefficient matrices in (23) satisfy those in (19).
Corollary 3.3. [15] Let L(λ) and Q(λ) be defined in (15) and (18), respectively. Then σ(L(λ)) = σ(Q(λ)) ∪ {0, · · · , 0
| {z }
m
},
where σ(·) denotes the spectra of the associated matrix pencil.
Theorem 3.4. Let Q(λ) in (18) with matrices A2, A1 and A0 defined in (19). Then A2 and A0 are positive definite. Furthermore there are n negative and n positive eigenvalues for Q(λ).
Proof. From Lemma 3.1 and S> being of full column rank, we get that the matrix A0 in (19c) is positive definite. On the other hand, from
"
M1 F1 F1> G1
#
0,
"
Mε Fε Fε> Gε
#
0
it follows
C ≡
M1 0 F1
0 0 0
F1> 0 G1
+
0 0 0
0 Mε Fε 0 Fε> Gε
=
M1 0 F1 0 Mε Fε F1> Fε> G
0.
Let
L1 =
In 0 0 In In 0 0 0 Im
, L2 =
In 0 0
0 In −F G−1
0 0 Im
,
L3 =
In − cM1Mc−1 0
0 In 0
0 0 Im
, L4 =
In 0 −F1G−1
0 In 0
0 0 Im
. Then
0 ≺ L4L3L2L1CL>1L>2L>3L>4
= L4L3L2
M1 0 F1 M1 Mε F F1> Fε> G
In In 0 0 In 0 0 0 Im
L>2L>3L>4
= L4L3
M1 M1 F1 Mc1> Mc 0
F1> F> 0
In 0 0
0 In 0
0 −G−1F> Im
L>3L>4
= L4
M1− cM1Mc−1Mc1> 0 F1 Mc1> Mc 0
F1> 0 G
In 0 0
− cM−1Mc1> In 0
0 0 Im
L>4
=
A2 0 0 0 Mc 0
0 0 G
, which implies that A2 0.
Let (λ, p) be an eigenpair of (18), then
λ2(pHA2p) − λ(pHA1p) − (pHA0p) = 0. (24) Here and hereafter, the superscript “H” in (24) denotes the conjugate transpose.
Because A1 is symmetric and A2, A0 0, we have
a2 ≡ pHA2p > 0, a1 ≡ pHA1p ∈ R, a0 ≡ pHA0p > 0, (25)
which implies that the roots of the quadratic equation (24) are
λ+= a1+pa21+ 4a2a0
2a2 > 0, λ− = a1−pa21+ 4a2a0
2a2 < 0. (26)
Hence, there are n negative and n positive eigenvalues for (18) and the associated eigenvectors are real vectors.
Theorem 3.5. Let
W0 =
"
M F
F> G
#−1/2"
K E>
#
, W1 =
"
M F
F> G
#−1/2"
M1 F1>
#
, (27)
and
d0 = kW0k2, d1 = kW1k2. Suppose that
a1 = λmin(K) − d0d1 > 0, (28a) a0 = λmin(A0), ¯a0 = λmax(A0) = d20, (28b) a2 = λmin(A2) , ¯a2 = λmax(A2). (28c) Then the n negative and n positive eigenvalues of (18) are, respectively, in the intervals (−β∗, 0) and (β∗, ∞), where
β∗ = 2¯a0
pa21+ 4a2a0+ a1, β∗ = a1+pa21+ 4a2a0 2¯a2
. (29)
Proof. By the definitions of W0 and W1, A1 in (19b) can be represented as
A1 = K − W0>W1− W1>W0. (30) Given an orthogonal vector p, from (27) and (28a), equation (30) implies that
pHA1p = pHKp − pHW0>W1p − pHW1>W0p ≥ λmin(K) − d0d1 = a1 > 0. (31) From (25)-(27) and (31), it follows that
−λ− = 2a0
pa21+ 4a2a0+ a1 ≤ 2¯a0
pa21+ 4a2a0+ a1 = β∗, and
λ+= a1+pa21+ 4a2a0
2a2 ≥ a1+pa21+ 4a2a0 2¯a2 = β∗.
4. Numerical method for reconstructing the unknown domain
In this section, we will propose a practical numerical method for the reconstruction of the support of the target D based on the LSM and the truncated SVD technique. As described in the Introduction, let z be a sampling point in the sampling domain T (see Figure 1) and k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue for TEP (1). According to Theorem 1.1, from (4) and (5), we can determine whether z is inside D or not by solving v ∈ L2(Γ) which satisfies the near field integral equation
Z
Γ
us(x, y)v(y)ds(y) = Φ(x, z) for all x ∈ C, (32) where Φ(x, z) is given in (3).
To solve (32), we first discretize (32) as follows. For each point source xi ∈ C, i = 1, · · · , m, suppose we have measured the scattered fields on the discrete points y1, · · · , yn on Γ. With these scattered fields, the discretized equation of (32) can be formulated as the overdetermined linear system
Av = b, (33)
where b = [Φ(x1, z), · · · , Φ(xm, z)]> ∈ Cm, A ∈ Cm×n depends on xi and yj for i = 1, · · · , m and j = 1, · · · , n, and the measured scattered fileds. v ∈ Cn is the approximation to the unknown values [v(y1), · · · , v(yn)]>. In general, the linear system (33) is very sensitive due to the ill-posedness of (32). For the case of m < n, the problem (33) can be solved by the Tikhonov regularization method which gives
v∈Cminn{||Av − b||2+ δ||v||2} (34) with δ > 0 be a regularization parameter. The proper choice of regularization parameters plays an important role in (34) in order to achieve accurate and stable numerical results. Actually, over the last four decades, many different methods for selecting regularization parameters have been proposed [13, 19, 31]. Even so, the selection of the optimal regularization parameter remains a difficult question in solving the discretized ill-posed linear system (33).
In this paper, we will propose a novel numerical method to reconstruct the domain D by solving the linear system (33) for the case of m ≥ n. Let A = span(A) be the subspace spanned by the columns of A. Recall from Section1 that
dist(b, A) = min
v∈Cn||Av − b||2.
From the perspective of matrix analysis, we reinterpret Theorem 1.1 in the following way. Assume that k2 is not an eigenvalue of (18), for instance, we choose 0 < k2 < β∗. If dist(b, A) > 0, then v satisfying (33) is in the sense that some components of v are infinity. In other words, we have kvk = ∞. We then assign z ∈ Ω \ D. On the other hand, if dist(b, A) = 0, then we can find a regular vector v with kvk < ∞ satisfying
(33). In this case, we say that z ∈ D. Our reconstruction method is based on this interpretation.
We will use a truncated SVD to determine the size of v. Let A = U
"
Σ 0
# VH
be the SVD of A, where U ∈ Cm×m and V ∈ Cn×n are unitary, Σ = diag(σ1, · · · , σn) is diagonal matrix of singular values with σ1 ≥ · · · ≥ σn ≥ 0. Usually, the discretized linear system (33) is sensitive that is inherited from the ill-posedness of (32), and the coefficient matrix A in (33) is not of full column rank. Suppose rank(A) = r < n, which means that σr > σr+1 = · · · = σn = 0. Denote Σr = diag(σ1, · · · , σr) and partition U and V with respect to Σr as U = [U1, U2] and V = [V1, V2] with U1 ∈ Cm×r and V1 ∈ Cn×r, respectively. Obviously, the following statements hold true.
A = U1ΣrV1H, A = span(U1) ≡ the subspace spanned by columns of U1, (35) and
dist(b, A)2 = min
v∈Cn||Av − b||22 = min
v∈Cr||Σrv − U1Hb||22 + ||U2Hb||22 = ||U2Hb||22, where U1ΣrV1H is called the truncated SVD of A. Let v be a vector satisfying (33).
Then we have
Av = b ⇔
"
Σr 0 0 0
# "
V1Hv V2Hv
#
=
"
U1Hb U2Hb
#
≡
"
Σr 0 0 0
# "
ˆ v1 ˆ v2
#
=
" ˆb1 bˆ2
#
. (36)
We interpret that v = ∞ is the solution of the equation 0 v = c if c 6= 0. Thus, from (36) follows that
Σrvˆ1 = ˆb1 ⇒ ˆv1 = Σ−1r bˆ1 ⇒ ||ˆv1|| < ∞, and
0ˆv1+ 0ˆv2 = ˆb2 ⇒ if ||ˆb2|| 6= 0, then ||ˆv|| = ∞.
This implies that
if b ∈ span{U1} ⇔ rank(A) = rank([A, b]), then ||v|| < ∞; (37a) if b /∈ span{U1} ⇔ rank(A) 6= rank([A, b]), then ||v|| = ∞. (37b) On the other hand, let bA = [A, b], then
AbHA =b
"
V1Σr 0 bˆH1 bˆH2
# "
ΣrV1H bˆ1 0 bˆ2
#
=
"
V1Σ2rV1H V1Σrbˆ1 bˆH1 ΣrV1H ||b||22
#
. (38)
It is easy to see that bAHA in (38) is similar tob
Σ2r Σrbˆ1 0 bˆH1 Σr ||b||22 0
0 0 0
≡
"
Σb2 0 0 0
#
(39)
by similarity transformations V ⊕ I and 0 ⊕
"
0 I I 0
#
. Here “ ⊕ ” denotes the direct sum of matrices. Let ˆσ1 ≥ · · · ≥ ˆσr+1 ≥ 0 be eigenvalues of bΣ. It follows immediately that the singular values of bA are ˆσ1 ≥ · · · ≥ ˆσr+1 ≥ ˆσr+2 = · · · = ˆσn+1 = 0.
In view of the special structure of matrix bΣ in (39), we apply the interlacing theorem for singular values of Σ and bΣ which leads to
ˆ
σ1 ≥ σ1 ≥ ˆσ2 ≥ σ2 ≥ · · · ˆσr ≥ σr ≥ ˆσr+1 ≥ σr+1 = 0. (40) For convenience, we set 0/0 = 1. Let σn+1= 0, then we have
1 ≤ ˆσj/σj < ∞ for j = 1, · · · , r, and ˆσj/σj = 1 for j = r + 2, · · · , n + 1. (41) Combing (40) and (41), the statements (37) can be represented as
b ∈ span{U1} ⇔ ˆσr+1 = 0, thus ˆσr+1/σr+1 = 0/0 = 1; (42a) b /∈ span{U1} ⇔ ˆσr+1 6= 0, thus ˆσr+1/σr+1 = ˆσr+1/0 = ∞. (42b) In conclusion, in our method, to decide whether z ∈ D or not relies heavily on effectively determining the ranks of A and bA. However, since the integral equation (33) is ill-posed, the matrices A and bA are normally ill-conditioned and there is often no gap in the spectrums of singular values. From numerical point of view, it is difficult to compute the truncated SVD for A. Consequently, we usually set r = n.
We now propose a practical criterion to numerically realize (42). As above, let the singular values of A be σ1 ≥ · · · ≥ σn ≥ 0 and those of bA be ˆσ1 ≥ · · · ≥ ˆσn+1 ≥ 0. We first compute
j(z) ≡ arg max1≤j≤nσˆj σj and define
Iz= ˆσj(z).
Here Izis used as an indicator to determine whether z is in D or not. Precisely, we pick a small threshold parameter 0 < M. Then we choose the following dichotomy:
if Iz< M, then we set z ∈ D, if Iz≥ M, then we set z /∈ D.
The algorithm of computing the indicator Iz is summarized in Algorithm 1 below.
5. Numerical experiments
In what follows, we will demonstrate the efficiency of our numerical method for four different domains shown in Figure 2: (a) a disk centered at (0, 0) with radius 0.5; (b) an ellipse region centered at the origin with axes 0.6 and 0.4; (c) a peanut-like region
Algorithm 1 Practical numerical reconstruction method based on the singular values Input: Discrete point sources xi ∈ C, detection points yj ∈ Γ for i = 1, · · · , m and
j = 1, · · · , n, respectively, with m > n. The wave number k ∈ R and sampling points z ∈ T .
Output: The indicator Iz.
1: For each point sources xi, collect all the measured scattered field usij for i = 1, · · · , m, j = 1, · · · , n.
2: Using the measured scattered field usij to discretize the integral of (32), then construct the coefficient matrix A ∈ Cm×n of (33).
3: Compute the SVD of A = U1ΣnV1H as in (35) with Σn = diag(σ1, · · · , σn).
4: For the sampling point z, compute the vector on the right hand side of (33), b = [Φ(x1, z), · · · , Φ(xm, z)]T, where Φ(·, ·) is given in (3).
5: Let bΣ ≡
"
Σ2n Σnbˆ1 bˆH1 Σn ||b||22
#
with ˆb1 = U1Hb.
6: Calculate the singular values of bΣ as ˆσ1 ≥ · · · ≥ ˆσn+1.
7: Determine the index j(z) = arg max1≤j≤nσˆj/σj.
8: Set Iz= ˆσj(z).
(a) Disk (b) Ellipse (c) Peanut (d) Heart
Figure 2. Four model domains that represent the region D.
enclosed by the equation ((x1− 0.7)2 + x22)((x1+ 0.7)2+ x22) = 0.724; (d) a heart-like region enclosed by the equation x21+ x22+ 0.5x2 = 0.5px21+ x22.
All computations for numerical test examples are carried out in MATLAB 2017a.
For the hardware configuration, we use an HP server equipped with the RedHat Linux operating system, two Intel Quad-Core Xeon E5-2643 3.33 GHz CPUs and 96 GB of main memory.
5.1. Distribution of the transmission eigenvalues
We carry out the FEM method described in Section 3to the TEP (1) on four different domains as in Figure2with the regular mesh size h ≈ 0.004 for triangles of each domain D. We set εr = 16, γ1 = 10, γ2 = 4, and thus ε(x) = −100. The associated dimensions n and m of matrices given in Table1 are shown in Table2. For each domain, we derive a corresponding QEP as given in (18).
Because of the two negative signs in (18), we should modify the quadratic Jacobi-
Table 2. Dimensions n, m (K ∈ Rn×n, E ∈ Rn×m) of matrices for the benchmark problems with the mesh size h ≈ 0.004.
Domain Disk Ellipse Peanut Heart
(n, m) (124631, 1150) (71546, 976) (149051, 1871) (168548, 1492)
-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Disk Ellipse Peanut Heart
17.7 30.3
28.3 100.3
Transmission eigenvalues
Figure 3. The eigenvalues λ of the QEP (18) in the intervel [−80, 250] for the four domains in Figure2with ε(x) = −100. The arrows point to the first positive eigenvalue of the QEP corresponding to each domain.
Davidson method in [23] to solve these QEPs. Of course, the partial locking and partial deflation schemes of Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3 in [23] can be employed as well. The numerical results are shown in Figure 3.
Owing to the negative inhomogeneous medium ε(x) = εr− (γ12+ γ22) in TEP (1) derived from the pesudo-chiral model. From Figure3, we immediately observe that there indeed exists an eigenvalue-free interval (0, β∗) = (0, 100.3) (disk), (0, 28.3) (ellipse), (0, 30.3) (peanut) and (0, 17.3) (heart), which verifies Theorem 3.5. Consequently, it is legitimate to say that k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue if k2 ∈ (0, β∗). In comparison, we note that the TEP (1a) with the Tellegen model in [23] is reduced to
−∆E3 = ω2(εr+ (γ12+ γ22))E3 ≡ ω2ε(x)E3 (43) with a large positive inhomogeneous medium ε(x), and its transmission eigenvalues are densely distributed on the interval (0, O(1)).
5.2. Reconstruction of the unknown domain from the near-field measurements
In this subsection, we apply Algorithm1to reconstruct the domain D from the near-field measurements for four distinct shapes as in Figure 2. As described above, our method is based on the LSM and the SVD technique.
For LSM, as shown in Figure 1, we make the following preparations for numerical experiments. Consider each domain in Figure 2 to be the target D, and let the circles
with radii 3 and 6 be Γ and C, respectively. Choose the rectangle domain [−1, 1]×[−1, 1]
to be the sampling domain T , which contains all possible targets D. From Figure 3, we choose a k ∈ (0,√
β∗), in other words, k2 is not a transmission eigenvalue. Different k ∈ (0,√
β∗)’s are chosen for testing in our numerical simulations.
Divid C and Γ into m and n segments uniformly, and denote the nodes as x1, · · · , xm and y1, · · · , yn, respectively. Place a uniform grid on T by drawing vertical and horizontal lines through the points with coordinates (x1i, x2j), where x1i = −1 + ih1 for i = 1, · · · , p and x2j = −1 + jh2 for j = 1, · · · , q, respectively. Let each mesh point (x1i, x2j) to be the sampling point zij. In our experiment, for these parameters, we choose m = 1269, n = 693 and p = q = 201, respectively.
To construct the discretized near-field integral equation, we need to collect all the scattered fields us on the detection points y1, · · · , yn for each point source xi, i = 1, · · · , m. For the purpose of numerical experiments, for a given point source xi, we can obtain the scattered fields in row [usi1, · · · , usin] by solving the direct scattering problem (2) using the FEM in Appendix A. Here, the FEM is applied to the domain enclosed by C, and the corresponding dimensions of E in Table 1 are n = 143834 and m = 1269, respectively. Adding 3% noise to the computed scattered fields us to produce the detected waves, with which, we discretize (32) into an ill-posed overdetermined linear system (33) with A = [δΓusij(xi, yj)]m×n ∈ Cm×n, where δΓ = 6π/n is the arc length of the uniform segment of Γ .
Applying Algorithm1to each sampling point zij ∈ T with all the above parameters to obtain the corresponding indicator Izij for i = 1, · · · , p and j = 1, · · · , q. From numerous numerical experiments by tuning k ∈ (0,√
β∗), we find that the reconstruction results will be heavily affected by the wave number k. In Figure 4, we show the 3d surface figures and the corresponding 2d contour figures by plotting Izij with respect to (xi, yj) ∈ T , and the actual targets in Figure 2 are plotted by red lines. In fact, Figure 4 shows the best results for reconstructing targets listed in Figure 2 by choosing appropriate wave numbers k∗ ∈ (0,√
β∗). In Figure 5, we show the 2d contour figures for other wave numbers k ∈ (0,√
β∗). According to our experimental experience, the areas of the reconstructed domains are less than the areas of the actual domains by approximately 10% − 20%. Our numerical experiments also suggest that the reconstructions of convex domains are more stable with respect to the choice of the wave number k and noise.
5.3. Tellegen model – positive index of refraction
In comparison, we demonstrate some numerical results of reconstructing the unknown target D for the inverse scattering problem with positive index of refraction. In [24], we considered the Maxwell’s equations with the TM mode in Tellegen media and derived the acoustic equation (1a) with a positive ε(x) increasing with respect to the Tellegen parameters. When ε(x) is large enough, we have shown that the transmission eigenvalues are densely distributed near the origin. In this subsection, we show some numerical
(a) Disk
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) Disk
(c) Ellipse
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(d) Ellipse
(e) Peanut
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(f) Peanut
(g) Heart
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(h) Heart
Figure 4. Reconstruction results of four targets in 3d surface figures and in 2d contour figures with ε(x) = −100 and k∗∈ (0,√
β∗). The domains enclosed by red curves are the exact targets D. The scattered fields used have 3% noise.
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(a) Disk
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) Ellipse
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(c) Peanut
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(d) Heart
Figure 5. Reconstruction results of four targets in 2d contour figures with ε(x) =
−100 and the different k ∈ (0,√
β∗). The domains enclosed by red curves are the exact targets D. The scattered fields have 3% noise.
reconstruction results based on our method when k2 is an eigenvalue of the associated QEP (presumably a transmission eigenvalue). We test two different kinds of index of refraction on the disk domain, one is a normal index of refraction ε(x) = 16 [24] and the other is ε(x) = 500 (Tellegen model) [23]. As shown in [24], when ε(x) = 16, the lowest transmission eigenvalue is approximately 1.988. In Figure 6(a), 6(b), we see that the reconstruction results are very sensitive to the choice of the wave number k. For the case of ε(x) = 500, our numerical result in [23] indicates that the transmission eigenvalues are distribute densely in the interval (0, 50). Figure 6(c) (choosing k = 5) shows that the disk is completely unrecognizable. The numerical results in this subsection verify the need of avoiding the transmission eigenvalues in the LSM.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we propose a practical numerical method based on the LSM and the truncated SVD to reconstruct the support of the inhomogeneity in the acoustic equation with negative index of refraction, resulting from in pseudo-chiral media. It turns out
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Disk domain with (x)=16 and k=2
(a) Reconstruction result of a disk (k = 2)
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Disk domain with (x)=16 and k=2.1
(b) Reconstruction result of a disk (k = 2.1)
(c) Reconstruction result of a disk (large index of refraction)
Figure 6. Numerical reconstruction results of a disk when k2 is a transmission eigenvalue. The scattered fields have 3% noise.
the index of refraction is in the form ε(x) = εr − (γ12+ γ22). We are also interested in the distribution of transmission eigenvalues for the corresponding TEP. The associated discretized TEP can be reduced into a QEP with symmetric coefficient matrices whose all the nonphysical zero eigenvalues are deflated. We prove that the corresponding QEP has half of negative eigenvalues and half of positive eigenvalues in (−β∗, 0) and (β∗, ∞), respectively, and there exists an eigenvalue-free interval (0, β∗). We then apply the LSM using the near-field data to reconstruct the domain D with ε(x) 6= 1 and propose an