Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata

, Volume 187, Issue 1, pp 7–37 | Cite as

The no-response approach and its relation to non-iterative methods for the inverse scattering

  • Naofumi Honda
  • Gen Nakamura
  • Roland Potthast
  • Mourad SiniEmail author
Original Article


This paper addresses the inverse obstacle scattering problem. In the recent years several non-iterative methods have been proposed to reconstruct obstacles (penetrable or impenetrable) from near or far field measurements. In the chronological order, we cite among others the linear sampling method, the factorization method, the probe method and the singular sources method. These methods use differently the measurements to detect the unknown obstacle and they require the use of many incident fields (i.e. the full or a part of the far field map). More recently, two other approaches have been added. They are the no-response test and the range test. Both of them use few incident fields to detect some informations about the scatterer. All the mentioned methods are based on building functions depending on some parameter. These functions share the property that their behaviors with respect to the parameter change drastically. The surface of the obstacle is located at most in the interface where these functions become large. The goal of this work is to investigate the relation between some of the non-iterative reconstruction schemes regarding the convergence issue. A given method is said to be convergent if it reconstructs a part or the entire obstacle by using few or many incident fields respectively. For simplicity we consider the obstacle reconstruction problem from far field data for the Helmholtz equation.


Indicator Function Response Test Inverse Scattering Helmholtz Equation Dirichlet Eigenvalue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alessandrini G. (1988): Stable determination of conductivity by boundary measurements. Appl. Anal. 27, 153–172zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ammari H., Kang H. (2004): Reconstruction of Small Inhomogeneities from Boundary Measurments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arens T. (2004): Why linear sampling works. Inverse Probl. 20(1): 163–173zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cakoni F., Colton D. (2003): On the mathematical basis of the linear simpling method. Georgian Math. J. 10, 95–104MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colton D., Kirsch A. (1996): A simple method for solving inverse scattering problems in the resonance region. Inverse Probl. 12, 383–393zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colton D., Kress R. (1998): Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ikehata M. (1998): Reconstruction of the shape of the inclusion by boundary measurements. Commun. PDE 23, 1459–1474zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ikehata M. (1999): Reconstruction of obstacles from boundary measurements. Wave motion 3, 205–223CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ikehata M. (2005): A new formulation of the probe method and related problems. Inverse Probl. 21(1): 413–426zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isakov, V.: Inverse Problems for Partial Differential Equations. Springer Series in Applied Math. Science, vol. 127. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirsch A. (1998): Characterization of the shape of a scattering obstacle using the spectral data of the far field operator. Inverse probl. 14, 1489–1512zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLean W. (2000): Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations. Cambridge University press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luke D-R., Potthast R. (2003): The no-response test-a sampling method for inverse acoustic scattering theory. SIAM J. App. Math. 63(4): 1292–1312zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakamura, G., Potthast, R., Sini, M.: Unification of the probe and singular sources methods for the inverse boundary value problem by the no-response test. Accepted for publication by Comm. PDE. Available on the page web Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakamura, G., Potthast, R., Sini, M.: A comparative study between some non-iterative methods for the inverse scattering. In: Ammari, H., Kang, H. (eds.) Inverse Problems, Multi-Scale Analysis, and Homogenization. Proceedings of the Workshop in Seoul, 2005. Contemporary Mathematics Volume, American Mathematical Society (To appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nečas J. (1967): Les méthodes directes en théorie des équations élliptiques. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potthast, R.: On the convergence of the no-response test (preprint)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potthast, R.: Point sources and multipoles in inverse scattering theory, vol. 427 of Chapman-Hall/CRC, Research Notes in Mathematics. Chapman-Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Potthast R., Sylvester J., Kusiak S. (2003): A ’range test’ for determining scatterers with unknown physical properties. Inverse Probl. 19(3): 533–547zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Potthast, R., Schulz, J.: A multiwave rangetest for obstacle reconstruction with unknown physical properties (preprint)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potthast R. (2005): Sampling and probe methods – an algorithmical view. Computing 75(2–3): 215–235zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramm A.G. (1986): Scattering by obstacles. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naofumi Honda
    • 1
  • Gen Nakamura
    • 2
  • Roland Potthast
    • 3
  • Mourad Sini
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Institute for Numerical and Applied MathematicsUniversity of Gottingen-Tomo-science GbRWolfsburg-GottingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations