REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references
Inverse source problems for the stochastic wave equations
T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the two source terms of a stochastic wave equation driven by a finite-jump Lévy process can be reconstructed from the final-time wave field, and that multi-frequency Tikhonov regularization mitigates the ill-posed…
desk verdict The Lévy half is a real, salvageable contribution, but the Helmholtz numerical experiments invert an operator that does not match the derived stochastic model, breaking the paper's central claim. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The machinery is mode-by-mode statistical inversion. In the Helmholtz half, the operative object is the integral operator $T_\nu$ with kernel $K_\nu(x,y)=\cos^2(2\nu|x-y|)$; the paper proves this operator is compact and self-adjoint, so a single frequency is ill-posed, while a dense set of frequencies $\{4\nu_k\}$ forces the null space to be trivial and makes the Tikhonov-regularized fit well-posed and $O(\sqrt{\delta})$-convergent. In the Lévy half, the Laplace eigenbasis diagonalizes the wave equation, so each mode $u_k(t)$ solves $u_k''+\lambda_k u_k=f_k h(t)+g_k\dot L_t$; the mean $\mathbb E[u_k(T)]$ and covariance $\mathrm{Cov}(u_k,u_l)$ become explicit linear expressions in $f_k$ and $g_kg_l$, inverted through (4.14)--(4.15). The covariance kernel $I_{kl}=\int_0^T \sin(k(T-\tau))\sin(l(T-\tau))/(kl)\,d\tau$ is shown to be nonzero for algebraic $T$, which is what carries the uniqueness claim for $g$.
What would settle it
Generate synthetic observations by solving the actual stochastic Helmholtz equation (2.1)--(2.2) with a known compactly supported $\mu$, then feed the second-moment data into the paper's multi-frequency inversion with the $\cos^2(2\nu|x-y|)$ kernel; if the recovered $\mu$ differs from the truth beyond the reported error levels, the numerical scheme is not inverting the physical forward map. For the Lévy equation, run the covariance-only reconstruction (4.15) on a sign-changing $g$ without phase correction; the paper's Remark 7 predicts it will return $|g|$ rather than $g$.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the obstruction to inverse source recovery in these stochastic settings is not the randomness itself but the choice of statistical data and the numerical treatment of the resulting operators. For the no-attenuation Helmholtz equation $\Delta u+\nu^2 u=f$ with $f=\sqrt{\mu}\,W'$, the variance $\mathbb E|u(x)|^2$ depends only on $\int_M \mu\,dy$, so the paper defines the feature functions $H^1(x,\nu,\mu)=\mathbb E|\mathrm{Re}(2\mathrm i\nu u)|^2=\int_M \cos^2(\nu|x-y|)\mu(y)\,dy$ and $H^2=\mathbb E|\mathrm{Re}(2\mathrm i\nu u)|^2-\mathbb E|\mathrm{Im}(2\mathrm i\nu u)|^2=\int_M \cos(2\nu|x-y|)\mu(y)\,dy$, then discretizes with kernel $\cos^2(2\nu|x-y|)$ and inverts with multi-frequency Tikhonov regularization. For the Lévy-driven equation $u_{tt}-\Delta u=f(x)h(t)+g(x)\dot L_t$, the paper establishes the stability estimate (4.13) for the mild solution and derives the reconstruction formulas (4.14) and (4.15): the modal means give $f_k$ when the drift is zero, and the modal covariances give $g_kg_l$ up to sign, with uniqueness of $f$ under monotonicity conditions and of $g$ for algebraic $T$.
Load-bearing premise
The Helmholtz reconstruction presupposes that the feature function with kernel $\cos^2(2\nu|x-y|)$ used in the discretization and Definition 2 is the forward map that generated the observations; the paper's own derivation from the wave equation yields kernels $\cos^2(\nu|x-y|)$ and $\cos(2\nu|x-y|)$ instead, so the numerical operator and the physical model may be inconsistent. The Lévy reconstruction additionally presupposes that the Lévy parameters $(b,\sigma,\lambda_p,\sigma_j^2)$ are known and that prior information fixes the sign of $g$, since formula (4.15) determines only the product $g_kg_l$ and hence $|g|$.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Under the dense-frequency uniqueness theorem, the multi-frequency Helmholtz inverse problem has a unique regularized solution that converges to the true strength at rate $O(\sqrt{\delta})$ as the data noise $\delta\to0$.
- The numerical experiments indicate that 3--4 frequency data points suffice for single-Fourier-mode strengths and about 10 for multi-mode strengths, compared with the 16 frequencies used in the attenuated case.
- In the Lévy-driven equation, the modal means recover the deterministic source $f$ exactly when the drift $b=0$, and the modal covariances recover the random source $g$ up to sign, with relative $L^2$ errors of order $10^{-3}$ for simple modes and $10^{-2}$ for multi-mode reconstructions.
- The stability estimate (4.13) bounds the expected space-time energy of the mild solution by the $L^2$ norms of $f$ and $g$, so the direct problem is mean-square well posed whenever the Gaussian-Poisson jump parameters are finite.
Reading between the lines
- One could test whether the Helmholtz inversion still works with the physically derived kernels $\cos^2(\nu|x-y|)$ and $\cos(2\nu|x-y|)$ in place of $\cos^2(2\nu|x-y|)$; the paper's uniqueness and regularization theorems do not directly cover those operators.
- Because the covariance data are insensitive to the sign of $g$, an immediate extension is to couple the final-time covariance with third-order moments or a known deterministic source term to break the sign symmetry; the paper notes the ambiguity but does not resolve it.
- The same spectral-covariance scheme should extend to infinite-jump Lévy processes by truncating or renormalizing the jump measure; the paper lists this as future work, and the stability estimate suggests control is retained when $\lambda_p\sigma_j^2$ stays finite.
- The dense-frequency condition in the Helmholtz half is stated for $\{4\nu_k\}$ dense in $[0,\infty)$; in higher dimensions the same idea would need a different oscillatory-integral argument, since the one-dimensional $|x-y|$ kernel structure does not transpose directly.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper treats two inverse source problems. For the one-dimensional stochastic Helmholtz equation without attenuation, with random source f = sqrt(mu) W', it proposes to reconstruct the strength mu from second-moment data of the wave field at several frequencies, using a feature function, multi-frequency data fusion, and Tikhonov regularization. For the stochastic wave equation driven by a finite-jump Lévy process, it proves a stability estimate for the mild solution and derives spectral formulas for recovering the deterministic source f and the spatial factor g from final-time data u(x,T). The paper contains theoretical statements on ill-posedness, uniqueness, stability, and convergence, together with numerical experiments for both problems.
Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would offer a genuinely new computational route to the no-attenuation Helmholtz inverse source problem and one of the first reconstruction schemes for a Lévy-driven stochastic wave equation. The direct stability estimate for the Lévy problem (Theorem 7) appears sound and is a useful contribution. However, the Helmholtz numerical framework as implemented does not invert the operator derived from the stochastic model, and the uniqueness statement for g in the Lévy section is overclaimed, as the paper itself partially acknowledges in Remark 7. In its current form the manuscript does not support its principal advertised conclusions.
major comments (5)
- [3.1.1, Definition 2, 3.1.3] Equations (3.11) and (3.12) correctly derive H1(x,ν,µ) = ∫ cos²(ν|x−y|)µ(y)dy and H2(x,ν,µ) = ∫ cos(2ν|x−y|)µ(y)dy. The next display, however, approximates H by Δy Σ cos²(2ν|x−y_j|)µ(y_j), and Definition 2 defines the forward operator Tν with kernel cos²(2ν|x−y|). Since cos²(2νr) is not an approximation of cos²(νr) or cos(2νr), there is no chain of reasoning connecting the physical data to the operator being inverted. Consequently, the numerical reconstructions in Section 3.1.3 and the theorems built on Definition 2 (Theorems 2–6) concern a different integral operator, and the paper's central claim that multi-frequency fusion mitigates the ill-posedness of the no-attenuation stochastic Helmholtz inverse problem is unsupported as written.
- [4.2.2, Theorem 8(2), Remark 7] Formula (4.15) determines the products g_k g_l, so for every solution g the function −g gives exactly the same covariance data. Theorem 8(2) therefore cannot be correct as stated: the source g is not uniquely determined by Cov(u_k(T), u_l(T)). Remark 7 concedes the sign ambiguity and indicates that the code applies a phase correction using prior information, but this limitation is not reflected in the abstract, in the statement of Theorem 8, or in the numerical claims. The final-time covariance data can at best determine g up to a global sign unless additional information is supplied.
- [Theorem 5] The theorem states the stability constant C(α) = 1/√α, but the continuous proof derives ∥µ_{α,1}−µ_{α,2}∥ ≤ (1/α)(Σ_k ∥T_{ν_k}∥)δ. The discrete proof first obtains (σ_max(A)/α)δ and then asserts the SVD bound δ/(2√α), so the rate 1/√α is not established by the arguments given. The statement and proof need to be aligned, since the quantitative stability estimate is one of the advertised theoretical results.
- [4.2.3] The numerical reconstruction of f is inconsistent with formula (4.14). Equation (4.14) divides by ∫_0^T h(τ) sin((T−τ)√λ_k)/√λ_k dτ, while the numerical section writes "the theoretical relationship" with ar U_k equal to f_k times Σ_j A_k(t_j)Δt and then defines f^rec_k = ar U_k. Unless that time integral equals 1, which is not stated, the computed f_k are not the modal coefficients of f. This needs to be corrected or the normalization made explicit.
- [4.2.2, proof of Theorem 8(2)] The claimed proof that I_{kl} ≠ 0 for every algebraic T is not valid. The Lindemann–Weierstrass/Vandermonde argument concerns a family of algebraically independent parameters T_j, not a fixed algebraic T, and it does not establish the desired non-degeneracy. Moreover, for T = π (an algebraic number), I_{kl} = 0 for all k ≠ l, so the statement "for any algebraic T, I_{kl} ≠ 0" is false. The numerical setting uses T = 1, so the non-degeneracy of the covariance kernel used in the reconstruction is not proved.
minor comments (5)
- [3.1.1] Several occurrences of "2viu" should read "2iνu"; the same typo appears in the sentences defining H1 and H2.
- [Definition 2 vs. 3.1.1] Definition 2 states that Tν maps L²([0,1]) into L²([0,1]), but the numerical design places observation points on I = [−1.2,−0.2] ∪ [1.2,2.2]. The theoretical framework should either use a data space L²(I) or explain how the kernel and observations are extended.
- [Theorem 2(2)] The null-space example µ(y) = cos(8νy) is not shown to satisfy Tνµ = 0 at ν = π/2; the displayed integral does not vanish by the argument given. Replace it with a correct construction, e.g., functions orthogonal to 1, cos(4νy), and sin(4νy).
- [Assumption 2] The text says the jump time interval follows a Poisson distribution; in a Poisson process the number of jumps in an interval is Poisson-distributed while the interarrival times are exponential. The wording should be corrected.
- [Figures 1–6] The figure captions are highly repetitive and do not identify which subplot corresponds to which true strength function or which noise level. Please expand the captions and label the axes.
Circularity Check
The Helmholtz numerical experiments invert the same cos²(2ν|x−y|) operator used to generate the synthetic data, while the Lévy g-reconstruction inserts the true sign via code-level phase correction; the claimed predictions are therefore partly self-consistency checks rather than tests against the stochastic models.
-
self definitional
[Section 3.1.1, equations (3.11)-(3.12), then Definition 2 and the Hobs generation sentence.]
"In order to maximize the retention of the characteristics of the real part while eliminating the influence of the imaginary part on strength recovery, making the recovery process more stable, and taking into account the forms of the two coefficients, we use discretization and summation to approximate the integral H(x, ν, µ) ≈ ∆y Σ cos2(2ν | x − yj |)µ(yj). ... Definition 2 (Direct Problem). ... Kν(x, y) = cos2(2ν|x − y|). The observed data Hobs(x, ν, µ) in the above equation is generated using different frequency data ν and the known true strength distribution."
The physical model gives H1(x,ν,µ) = ∫ cos²(ν|x−y|)µ(y)dy and H2(x,ν,µ) = ∫ cos(2ν|x−y|)µ(y)dy. The next display replaces these by the kernel cos²(2ν|x−y|) without a derivation; cos²(2νr) = (1+cos(4νr))/2 is not an approximation of cos²(νr) or cos(2νr). Definition 2 then makes the substituted kernel the forward operator Tν, and the reported Hobs is generated from the known true strength with the same framework. If Hobs is generated by the discretized cos²(2ν|x−y|) operator, the Tikhonov inversion is inverting the very operator that produced the data, so the numerical reconstructions and Theorems 2-6 certify a self-defined operator rather than the stochastic Helmholtz inverse source problem.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Section 4.2.2 formula (4.15), Remark 7, and the phase correction in the numerical implementation.]
"It should be noted that since the covariance of the observed data is insensitive to the sign of g(x), the sign of its modal coefficient gk is ambiguous. Therefore, we perform phase correction in the code to obtain results that are more consistent with the actual situation, but this usually requires additional prior information. However, in practical applications, since the true sign is unknown, such direct correction is often infeasible, necessitating the reconstruction of g2 or the use of other methods to address the issue of sign uncertainty."
Formula (4.15) determines only the products gkgl from the covariance data, so after fixing the known diagonal factors it identifies |gk| but not the sign of gk. The numerical code then applies a 'phase correction' that sets the signs equal to those of the true g used in the forward simulation. The reported reconstructed g curve therefore contains the target sign as an inserted input rather than as an output of the data. The paper itself concedes that the true sign is unknown in practice and that such direct correction is often infeasible, which means the g-reconstruction shown in the experiments is not a free prediction from final-time data.
1 more flagged steps
-
other
[Theorem 8(2) and Remark 7.]
"(2) If T is an arbitrary algebraic number, then the source term g is uniquely determined by Cov(uk(T ), ul(T )); k, l∈ N. ... since the covariance of the observed data is insensitive to the sign of g(x), the sign of its modal coefficient gk is ambiguous."
The theorem states uniqueness of g from the covariance data, but the covariance identifies only the products gkgl via (4.15). The proof shows Ikl ≠ 0, i.e., that the products are recoverable; it does not determine the signs of the individual gk. The remark immediately following the numerical design acknowledges this sign ambiguity. Thus Theorem 8(2) is stronger than its premises and, to be true, would need an unstated sign prior. The numerical section obtains a full signed g only by using the target signs through phase correction, so the uniqueness claim and the reported reconstruction both depend on input information that the stated data do not contain.
full rationale
The paper contains two genuine reductions-by-construction. First, in the Helmholtz section the authors correctly derive the model-based features (3.11) and (3.12), but they then replace the kernels cos²(ν|x−y|) and cos(2ν|x−y|) by cos²(2ν|x−y|) without proof, define the forward operator Tν with that new kernel, and generate the synthetic observations from the known true strength using this same framework. Consequently the reported multi-frequency Tikhonov reconstructions are self-consistency checks of an operator chosen by the authors, not tests of the stochastic Helmholtz inverse source problem; the ill-posedness and convergence theorems describe the chosen operator, not the physical model. Second, in the Lévy part formula (4.15) identifies only gkgl, so the sign of g is unidentifiable from the covariance; the code's phase correction inserts the true sign, and Remark 7 admits this. The numerical g-reconstructions therefore use the target sign as an input. The references to [20], [26], and [28] are not self-citations by the present authors, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Overall, the central claim that the methods reconstruct f and g from final-time data is only partially supported: f follows directly from the mean data under b=0, while g is recovered only up to sign unless the true sign is supplied, and the Helmholtz numerical validation is circular with respect to the operator definition.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (6)
- Tikhonov regularization parameter α =
not reported
- Set of frequencies {ν_k} =
ν=1:3, 1:4, 2:11 in experiments
- Number of spectral modes K =
not specified
- Lévy parameters (b, σ, λ_p, σ_j²) =
assumed known
- Sign of g_k (phase correction) =
set from the true source in the code
- Noise variance σ_ε² =
σ=0.001 and 0.005 in experiments
assumptions (7)
- domain assumption Assumption 1: the random source f is a real-valued, centrally symmetric, locally isotropic Gaussian random field of order -s with covariance symbol μ(x)|ξ|^{-s}.
- domain assumption Assumption 2: jump amplitudes are i.i.d. N(0, σ_j²) and jump times follow a Poisson process with rate λ_p.
- domain assumption The time-dependent source h is non-degenerate, with support of positive measure, and for the uniqueness result in Theorem 8(1) h is monotone.
- domain assumption The drift coefficient b is zero for the reconstruction of f in (4.14).
- standard math Itô isometry for stochastic integrals.
- standard math Campbell's theorem for compound Poisson processes.
- standard math Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem for algebraic numbers.
invented entities (1)
-
Feature function H(x,ν,µ) with kernel cos²(2ν|x−y|)
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Inverse source problems for the stochastic wave equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HMAENQE
@misc{pith2026250701789,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Inverse source problems for the stochastic wave equations},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HMAENQE}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01789}
}
abstract
To address the ill-posedness of the inverse source problem for the one-dimensional stochastic Helmholtz equations without attenuation, this study develops a novel computational framework designed to mitigate this inherent challenge at the numerical implementation level. For the stochastic wave equation driven by a finite-jump L\'evy process (assuming that its jump amplitude obeys a Gaussian distribution and the jump time interval obeys a Poisson distribution), this paper firstly establish the existence of a mild solution to its direct problem satisfying a particular stability estimate. Building upon these theoretical foundations, we further investigate the well-posedness of the inverse problem and develop a methodology to reconstruct the unknown source terms $f$ and $g$ using the data of the wave field at the final time point $u(x,T)$. This work not only provides rigorous theoretical analysis and effective numerical schemes for solving inverse source problems in these two specific classes of stochastic wave equations, but also offers new perspectives and methodological approaches for addressing a broader range of wave propagation inverse problems characterized by non-Gaussian stochastic properties. The proposed framework demonstrates significant relevance for characterizing physical phenomena influenced by jump-type stochastic perturbations, offering promising applications in diverse domains including but not limited to seismic wave propagation analysis and financial market volatility modeling.
Figures
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Robert A Adams and John JF Fournier. Sobolev spaces, volume 140. Elsevier, 2003
work page 2003
-
[2]
Application of inverse source concepts to photoacoustic tomography
Mark A Anastasio, Jin Zhang, Dimple Modgil, and Patrick J La Rivi` ere. Application of inverse source concepts to photoacoustic tomography. Inverse Problems, 23(6):S21, 2007
work page 2007
-
[3]
L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus
David Applebaum. L´ evy processes and stochastic calculus. Cambridge university press, 2009
2009
-
[4]
Alan Baker. Transcendental number theory. Cambridge university press, 2022
work page 2022
-
[5]
An inverse source problem for maxwell’s equations in magnetoencephalography
Gang Bao, Habib Ammari, and John L Fleming. An inverse source problem for maxwell’s equations in magnetoencephalography. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 62(4):1369– 1382, 2002
work page 2002
-
[6]
Inverse random source scattering problems in several dimensions
Gang Bao, Chuchu Chen, and Peijun Li. Inverse random source scattering problems in several dimensions. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 4(1):1263–1287, 2016
work page 2016
-
[7]
Inverse random source scattering for elastic waves
Gang Bao, Chuchu Chen, and Peijun Li. Inverse random source scattering for elastic waves. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 55(6):2616–2643, 2017
work page 2017
-
[8]
Stability for the inverse source problems in elastic and electromagnetic waves
Gang Bao, Peijun Li, and Yue Zhao. Stability for the inverse source problems in elastic and electromagnetic waves. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 134:122–178, 2020
work page 2020
Show all 31 references
-
[9]
A multi-frequency inverse source problem
Gang Bao, Junshan Lin, and Faouzi Triki. A multi-frequency inverse source problem. Journal of Differential Equations , 249(12):3443–3465, 2010
2010
-
[10]
An inverse source problem with multiple frequency data
Gang Bao, Junshan Lin, and Faouzi Triki. An inverse source problem with multiple frequency data. Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique, 349(15-16):855–859, 2011
2011
-
[11]
Numerical solution of the inverse source problem for the helmholtz equation with multiple frequency data
Gang Bao, Junshan Lin, Faouzi Triki, et al. Numerical solution of the inverse source problem for the helmholtz equation with multiple frequency data. Contemp. Math , 548:45–60, 2011. 37
2011
-
[12]
Imaging and time reversal in random media
Liliana Borcea, George Papanicolaou, Chrysoula Tsogka, and James Berryman. Imaging and time reversal in random media. Inverse Problems, 18(5):1247–1279, 2002
2002
-
[13]
Increasing stability in the inverse source problem with many frequencies
Jin Cheng, Victor Isakov, and Shuai Lu. Increasing stability in the inverse source problem with many frequencies. Journal of Differential Equations , 260(5):4786–4804, 2016
2016
-
[14]
Nonuniqueness in inverse source and scattering problems
A Devaney and G Sherman. Nonuniqueness in inverse source and scattering problems. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , 30(5):1034–1037, 2003
2003
-
[15]
The inverse problem for random sources
AJ Devaney. The inverse problem for random sources. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 20(8):1687–1691, 1979
1979
-
[16]
Inverse source and scattering problems in ultrasonics
Anthony J Devaney. Inverse source and scattering problems in ultrasonics. IEEE transactions on sonics and ultrasonics , 30(6):355–363, 1983
1983
-
[17]
Convex analysis and variational problems
Ivar Ekeland and Roger Temam. Convex analysis and variational problems . SIAM, 1999
1999
-
[18]
Regularization of inverse problems, volume 375
Heinz Werner Engl, Martin Hanke, and Andreas Neubauer. Regularization of inverse problems, volume 375. Springer Science & Business Media, 1996
1996
-
[19]
Increasing stability in acoustic and elastic inverse source problems
Mozhgan Entekhabi and Victor Isakov. Increasing stability in acoustic and elastic inverse source problems. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 52(5):5232–5256, 2020
2020
-
[20]
An inverse source problem for the stochastic wave equation
Xiaoli Feng, Meixia Zhao, Peijun Li, and Xu Wang. An inverse source problem for the stochastic wave equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04744 , 2021
2021 arXiv
-
[21]
Real analysis: modern techniques and their applications
Gerald B Folland. Real analysis: modern techniques and their applications . John Wiley & Sons, 1999
1999
-
[22]
A stochastic galerkin method for the direct and inverse
Ning Guan, Dingyu Chen, Peijun Li, and Xinghui Zhong. A stochastic galerkin method for the direct and inverse. Communications in mathematical sciences , 22(2):563–581, 2024
2024
-
[23]
Discrete inverse problems: insight and algorithms
Per Christian Hansen. Discrete inverse problems: insight and algorithms . SIAM, 2010
2010
-
[24]
Numerical solution of two point boundary value problems
Herbert B Keller. Numerical solution of two point boundary value problems . SIAM, 1976
1976
-
[25]
Linear integral equations, volume 82
Rainer Kress. Linear integral equations, volume 82. Springer, 1999
1999
-
[26]
Inverse scattering problem for a two dimensional random potential
Matti Lassas, Lassi P¨ aiv¨ arinta, and Eero Saksman. Inverse scattering problem for a two dimensional random potential. Communications in mathematical physics , 279:669–703, 2008
2008
-
[27]
Inverse source problems for the stochastic wave equations: far-field patterns
Jianliang Li, Peijun Li, and Xu Wang. Inverse source problems for the stochastic wave equations: far-field patterns. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 82(4):1113–1134, 2022
2022
-
[28]
An inverse random source problem for the one-dimensional helmholtz equation with attenuation
Peijun Li and Xu Wang. An inverse random source problem for the one-dimensional helmholtz equation with attenuation. Inverse Problems, 37(1):015009, 2020. 38
2020
-
[29]
Inverse random source scattering for the helmholtz equation with attenuation
Peijun Li and Xu Wang. Inverse random source scattering for the helmholtz equation with attenuation. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 81(2):485–506, 2021
2021
-
[30]
Stability on the inverse random source scattering problem for the one-dimensional helmholtz equation
Peijun Li and Ganghua Yuan. Stability on the inverse random source scattering problem for the one-dimensional helmholtz equation. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 450(2):872–887, 2017
2017
-
[31]
Methods of modern mathematical physics: Functional anal- ysis, volume 1
Michael Reed and Barry Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics: Functional anal- ysis, volume 1. Gulf Professional Publishing, 1980. 39
1980
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.