Time-dependent approach to the uniqueness of the Sommerfeld solution of the diffraction problem by a half-plane

A. Merzon; J.E. De la Paz M\'endez; P. Zhevandrov; T.J. Villalba Vega

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Time-dependent approach to the uniqueness of the Sommerfeld solution of the diffraction problem by a half-plane

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Time-dependent uniqueness pins down Sommerfeld's half-plane diffraction solution

desk verdict Fills a real gap in half-plane diffraction uniqueness, but the Green identity step on the slit domain needs spelling out before the central claim is airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01663 v1 pith:6YJWATGE submitted 2019-08-05 math-ph math.MP

A. Merzon , P. Zhevandrov , J.E. De la Paz Méndez , T.J. Villalba Vega This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.MP MSC 35L0535B4035A0278A45

keywords diffractionhalf-planeSommerfeldsolutionlimitingamplitudeprincipletime-dependentscatteringuniquenessSobolevspaceFourier-Laplacetransform

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the classical Sommerfeld solution for diffraction of a plane wave by an opaque half-plane is the unique limiting amplitude of a time-dependent scattering problem. The authors prove that the time-dependent problem has a unique solution in a specific functional class, and that as time goes to infinity this solution tends to the Sommerfeld formula without needing to impose radiation or edge regularity conditions from the outset. This matters because the stationary diffraction problem is non-unique, and the paper explains where the usual physical selection conditions come from: they emerge naturally from the time-dependent formulation.

What carries the argument

The functional class $M$: functions whose Fourier-Laplace transform in time is holomorphic in the upper half-plane with values in $H^1(Q)$. Membership in $M$ gives the needed trace and boundary properties so that the stationary problem is well-posed, and it replaces the ad hoc radiation and edge regularity conditions. The other load-bearing object is the Fourier-Laplace transform itself, which converts the time-dependent problem into a stationary Helmholtz problem with complex wavenumber, enabling the Sobolev-space uniqueness argument.

What would settle it

Construct a nontrivial solution of the homogeneous stationary problem (with zero boundary data and complex wavenumber) that lies in the Fourier-Laplace image of a function in $M$, showing that the uniqueness step fails. Since the proof uses the decay of boundary integrals along a sequence of radii $R_j$, one could test the argument by numerically constructing a solution that has nonzero boundary traces that decay slower than $o(R^{-1/2})$ in $L^2$ norm along every sequence of radii, which would invalidate equation (6.3).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Sommerfeld half-plane solution is not an arbitrary choice among many stationary solutions, but the forced limit of a unique time-dependent evolution. Working with the scattered wave $u_s$ rather than the total wave, the authors apply a Fourier-Laplace transform in time to obtain a family of stationary Helmholtz problems with complex wavenumber. They prove (Theorem 6.1) that the time-dependent problem (1.8)-(1.10) admits a unique solution in the space $M$ of distributions whose Fourier-Laplace transform is holomorphic in the upper half-plane and belongs to $H^1(Q)$ pointwise. The uniqueness proof uses the Castro-Kapanadze theorem for wedges, extended to the angle-$2\pi$ slit domain, with a Green's identity argument that selects a subsequence of radii $R_j$ on which the boundary terms vanish. Once uniqueness is established, the previously proven limiting amplitude principle identifies the Sommerfeld formula as the unique physical limit.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness proof relies on extending the wedge uniqueness theorem of Castro-Kapanadze from wedges of arbitrary aperture angle to the limiting case of a slit with angle $2\pi$, without re-proving the theorem for that degenerate domain; if the extension requires edge conditions that are not captured by the $H^1$ regularity of the Fourier-Laplace transform, the central uniqueness claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Sommerfeld solution is the unique physical limit of the time-dependent problem, so no additional radiation or edge conditions are needed beyond the time-dependent formulation.
The same scheme can be applied to other diffraction problems by half-planes (e.g., Neumann or impedance boundary conditions) to justify their classical formulas as limiting amplitudes.
The uniqueness result fills the gap in the earlier work of Komech et al., making the limiting amplitude principle rigorous for the half-plane case.
The proof demonstrates that the regularity of the Fourier-Laplace transform encodes the edge behavior, suggesting a general principle for selecting physical solutions in diffraction problems with screens.
The method shows that the ill-posedness of the stationary problem is resolved once it is embedded in a time-dependent evolution with an appropriate solution class.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The argument suggests that the choice of solution class $M$ is not an artifact but captures the physical causality of the scattering process, since the Fourier-Laplace transform encodes the fact that the scattered wave vanishes for negative times.
One could test the robustness of the uniqueness by varying the functional class (e.g., weaker or stronger Sobolev regularity) and checking whether the limiting amplitude remains the Sommerfeld solution.
The same technique of reducing nonstationary to stationary problems with complex wavenumber might apply to diffraction by multiple half-planes or by screens with finite extent, where the radiation conditions are harder to guess a priori.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper closes a genuine gap: uniqueness of the time-dependent half-plane diffraction problem in the class M, and it shows the Sommerfeld formula is the limiting amplitude of the unique solution. The main new idea is to pass through the Fourier-Laplace transform to a stationary problem with complex wavenumber, where H^1 uniqueness from Castro-Kapanadze applies. That is a nice reduction and it avoids imposing radiation and edge conditions from the start. The explicit estimates in Section 5 are careful and mostly convincing, and the proof that the transform belongs to H^1 is plausible.

The soft spots: first, the description of (6.2) is off. The integrand on the left is negative for Re omega > 0, not non-negative. The argument still works if you take absolute values and use monotonicity of the integral, but the text is wrong as written. Second, and more importantly, the uniqueness proof applies Green's first identity on Q_R, which is a slit domain with a reentrant corner of angle 2*pi at the origin. For proper wedges (angle < 2*pi) the boundary is Lipschitz and the theorem in [10] applies. Here the tip is a crack tip where the normal is not defined and the divergence theorem for H^1 functions is not automatic. The paper does not justify that no boundary contribution arises from the origin. I think the gap is patchable: cut out a small circle around the origin, use the same Fubini argument the paper uses for the outer circles to send the inner boundary term to zero along a sequence. But patchable is not the same as present, and since the entire uniqueness claim rests on this step, it should be written out.

I do not think the reliance on the authors' earlier existence result [11] is a problem; the uniqueness result here is new and does not depend on [11] for its argument. The citation pattern is normal for this group, and the cited results are relevant.

Bottom line: this is a serious paper, worth refereeing, but the referee should ask for a clean treatment of the divergence theorem at the slit tip and a correction to the sign statement in (6.2). I would send it to a good PDE or mathematical physics journal and expect a revise-and-resubmit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-dimensional time-dependent diffraction of a plane wave by an opaque half-plane with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The authors interpret the classical Sommerfeld stationary solution as the limiting amplitude, as t tends to infinity, of a solution to the time-dependent problem (1.5)-(1.6). They define a class M of generalized solutions whose Fourier-Laplace transforms are holomorphic in the upper half-plane with values in C^2(Q) ∩ H^1(Q), and they prove in Theorem 6.1 that the mixed problem (1.8)-(1.10) admits a unique solution in M. The existence part is taken from the authors' earlier paper [11]; the new contribution is the uniqueness proof, which passes to the Fourier-Laplace transform and adapts the Castro-Kapanadze uniqueness theorem [10] to the slit domain with interior angle 2π. The paper also gives explicit estimates for the Fourier-Laplace transform of the solution and shows that it belongs to H^1(Q).

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper provides a natural way to obtain the radiation and edge conditions for the Sommerfeld half-plane problem from a well-posed time-dependent setting, without imposing those conditions a priori. This closes a gap left by the authors' previous work, which treated wedges with nonzero aperture angle but excluded the half-plane case. The explicit Fourier-Laplace estimates in Section 5 are a useful technical contribution, and the connection between the stationary uniqueness and the time-dependent class M is conceptually appealing. However, the uniqueness proof in Section 6 contains a load-bearing gap: the first Green identity is used on a non-Lipschitz slit domain without justifying the absence of a boundary contribution from the screen tip. Because this step is essential for the conclusion that the difference of two solutions vanishes, the paper needs a substantial revision before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Section 6, equations (6.1)-(6.3)] The first Green identity is applied on the domain Q_R = Q ∩ B(R), which has a reentrant corner of interior angle 2π at the screen tip and another non-Lipschitz point where the slit meets ∂B(R). The paper does not justify that the integration-by-parts formula holds for functions in H^1(Q_R) without an additional boundary contribution from the tip. For a solution of (Δ+ω^2)ŵ_s = 0 with zero Dirichlet data on the screen, such a tip term will vanish if one has the standard edge asymptotics ŵ_s = O(r^{1/2}) and ∇ŵ_s = O(r^{-1/2}), but this estimate is not stated or proved in the manuscript. Without a proof or a precise reference for the Green formula on slit domains, or an argument showing that the inner boundary term tends to zero, the step leading to (6.1)-(6.2) is not rigorous and the conclusion ŵ_s ≡ 0 does not follow.
[Section 6, after equation (6.2)] The text states that the left-hand side integrands in (6.1) and (6.2) are non-negative. This is false for (6.2) when Re ω > 0, since the integrand there is -2(Re ω)(Im ω)|ŵ_s|^2, which is negative. The final conclusion can still be recovered by taking absolute values and using that the prefactor is nonzero and that the boundary term tends to zero along the sequence R_j, but the monotonicity argument as written is incorrect and needs to be repaired.

minor comments (4)

[Section 6, first paragraph of Theorem 6.1] The assertion that arbitrary solutions in M satisfy all the conditions of Proposition 5.7 is not justified, because the exponential estimates (5.6) are proved only for the explicitly constructed solution, not for the whole class M. The subsequent argument only uses H^1(Q), so the overstatement should be removed or qualified.
[Section 4, Corollary 4.3] The definition of A_i in Corollary 4.3 appears inconsistent with (1.1): the limiting amplitude of u_i should be e^{-iω_0 ρ cos(φ-α)}, not e^{-iω_0 ρ cos(φ+α)}. Please check the sign in the exponential.
[Introduction and Conclusion] The claim that the approach obtains the regularity edge condition 'in a natural way' would be clearer if the paper explicitly identified which edge condition is obtained (for example, the r^{1/2} behavior at the tip) and where in the proof it enters.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'exept' for 'except', 'nostationary' for 'nonstationary', 'Schawrtz' for 'Schwarz', and an apparent notation slip 'Âω_s' in the sentence preceding (6.2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the new uniqueness theorem is proved by an independent Green-identity argument; self-citations supply context and prior existence/LAP, not the load-bearing reduction.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely new claim is Theorem 6.1: uniqueness in the class M. Its proof is self-contained in the relevant sense: it takes a difference of two M-solutions, applies the Fourier-Laplace transform, uses the H^1 regularity of the transform, and runs a Green-identity/Rellich argument modeled on the external theorem [10] by Castro and Kapanadze. No parameter is fitted and no same-author theorem is invoked to force the conclusion; the boundary condition and the Helmholtz equation with complex frequency do the work. The self-citations that do occur are not circular in the prohibited sense. Existence of a solution and the limiting amplitude property are quoted from the authors' earlier paper [11], and the introduction openly says that the present paper 'makes up for this omission.' The uniqueness argument does not reduce to [11]; it uses only the explicit regularity estimates for the Fourier-Laplace transform proved in Section 5. Remark 4.1's reference to [26] for the Sommerfeld-type representation is also not load-bearing for uniqueness: even if that representation were an ansatz, the present paper proves that any M-solution is unique, and the displayed formula is only used to exhibit existence. The limiting amplitude identification is not a renamed fit either: the Sommerfeld amplitude A is defined independently in Section 2, and the time-dependent solution is shown to satisfy the defining equations; taking its limit is a substantive verification, inherited from [11] rather than manufactured here. The only serious concern is the unstated assumption that Green's first identity holds on the non-Lipschitz slit domain Q_R with a reentrant corner of angle 2π at the tip, with no boundary contribution from the origin. That is a potential correctness gap in the proof of Theorem 6.1, but it is not circularity: it does not make the theorem equivalent to its inputs by definition or by self-citation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two external results: the self-cited existence/LAP theorem from [11] and the Castro-Kapanadze uniqueness theorem from [10], extended to the slit domain. Standard tools (Fourier-Laplace transform, Green's identity, Sobolev trace theory) are used as background. No free parameters were fitted and no new physical entities were introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The existence and limiting amplitude principle for the half-plane problem as established in [11, Theorems 3.2, 4.1].
Used in Section 4 to assert that u(ρ,φ,t) given by (4.7) belongs to L1_loc, satisfies (1.5)-(1.6) in the distribution sense, and that its limiting amplitude is the Sommerfeld solution. This result is not re-proven in the present paper and is by the same research group.
domain assumption Uniqueness for the stationary Helmholtz problem with complex wavenumber in H^1(Q) for wedges of arbitrary angle, from [10, Theorem 2.1], extended to the half-plane (angle 2π).
Section 6 bases the uniqueness proof on this theorem; the paper says it follows closely the proof of Theorem 2.1 from [10] except that the angle can now be 2π. The extension is asserted rather than fully proved.
standard math Standard properties of the Fourier-Laplace transform on tempered distributions supported on R+, including analyticity in C+.
Used in Section 3 to reduce the time-dependent problem to the family (3.4) and to justify the transform of the solution in M.
standard math Green's first identity and Sobolev trace theory for domains with piecewise smooth boundary, including the half-plane with a slit.
Used in Section 6 for the uniqueness proof: the first Green identity is applied on QR with piecewise smooth boundary and the boundary term is handled via traces in H^1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-dependent approach to the uniqueness of the Sommerfeld solution of the diffraction problem by a half-plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YJWATGE

@misc{pith2026190801663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-dependent approach to the uniqueness of the Sommerfeld solution of the diffraction problem by a half-plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YJWATGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01663}
}

abstract

We consider the Sommerfeld problem of diffraction by an opaque half-plane with a real wavenumber interpreting it as the limiting case, as time tends to infinity, of the corresponding time-dependent diffraction problem. We prove that the Sommerfeld formula for the solution is the limiting amplitude of the solution of this time-dependent problem which belongs to a certain functional class and is unique in it. For the proof of uniqueness of solution to the time-dependent problem we reduce it, after the Fourier-Laplace transform in $t$, to a stationary diffraction problem with a complex wavenumber. This permits us to use the proof of uniqueness in the Sobolev space $H^1$. Thus we avoid imposing the radiation and regularity conditions on the edge from the beginning and instead obtain it in a natural way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01663 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Uniqueness From the real and imaginary parts of the last identity, we obtain Z QR h |∇wˆs| 2 + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Contour γr 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[10]

Wave diﬀraction by wedges having arbitrary aperture angle

Castro LP, Kapanadze D. Wave diﬀraction by wedges having arbitrary aperture angle. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications . 2015; 421(2):1295–1314. DOI:10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.07.080

work page doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.07.080 2015
[11]

Sommerfeld’s solution as the limiting amplitude and asymp- totics for narrow wedges

Komech AI, Merzon AE, Esquivel Navarrete A, De La Paz M´ endez JE, Vil- lalba Vega TJ. Sommerfeld’s solution as the limiting amplitude and asymp- totics for narrow wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.5075

work page doi:10.1002/mma.5075 2018
[1]

Mathematische theorie der diﬀraction

Sommerfeld A. Mathematische theorie der diﬀraction. Mathematische Annalen. 1896; 47:317–374

work page
[2]

Optics (Lectures on theoretical physics, Vol

Sommerfeld A. Optics (Lectures on theoretical physics, Vol. 4). New York, Academic Press, 1954

work page 1954
[3]

Nagem, M

R.J. Nagem, M. Zampolli, G. Sandri, Arnol Sommerfeld. Theory of Diﬀraction, Progress in Mathematical Physics V.35. Springer Science Business media New York. Originally published in Birkha. Boston in 2004

work page 2004
[4]

A uniqueness and a new solution for Sommerfeld’s and other diﬀraction problems

Peters A.S., Stoker J.J. A uniqueness and a new solution for Sommerfeld’s and other diﬀraction problems. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 1954. 7(3):565-585. DOI:10.1002/cpa.3160070307

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070307 1954
[5]

Heins, A

A.E. Heins, A. Arbor. The Sommerfeld Half-Plane Problem Revisited I: The solution of a pair of complex Wiener-H¨ opf integral equations. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences. 1982 4: 74-90

work page 1982
[6]

F., Teixeira F.S

Dos Santos A. F., Teixeira F.S. The Sommerfeld problem revisted: solution spaces and the edges conditions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications . 1989; 143: 341-357

work page 1989

Show all 35 references

[7]

Eidus, The principle of limit amplitude, Russian Mathematical Surveys 24 (1969), no

D.M. Eidus, The principle of limit amplitude, Russian Mathematical Surveys 24 (1969), no. 3, 24–97

1969
[8]

Morawetz, The limiting amplitude principle, Comm

C. Morawetz, The limiting amplitude principle, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 15 (1962), 349–361. 20

1962
[9]

B. R. Vainberg, Asymptotic Methods in Equations of Mathematical Physics, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1989

1989
[12]

Sur une m´ ethode nouvelle dans le probl´ eme plan des vibra- tions ´ elastiques.Trudy Seismological Institute Academy of Nauk SSSR

Smirnov VI, Sobolev SL. Sur une m´ ethode nouvelle dans le probl´ eme plan des vibra- tions ´ elastiques.Trudy Seismological Institute Academy of Nauk SSSR. 1932; 20:1–37

1932
[13]

Theory of diﬀraction of plane waves

Sobolev SL. Theory of diﬀraction of plane waves. Proceedings of Seismological Insti- tute, Russian Academy of Science, Leningrad . 1934; 41(1):75–95

1934
[14]

Sobolev, General theory of diﬀraction of waves on Riemann surfaces, Tr

S.L. Sobolev, General theory of diﬀraction of waves on Riemann surfaces, Tr. Fiz.- Mat. Inst. Steklova 9 (1935), 39-105. [Russian] (English translation: S.L. Sobolev, General theory of diﬀraction of waves on Riemann surfaces, p. 201-262 in: Selected Works of S.L. Sobolev, Vol....

1935
[15]

Sobolev, Some questions in the theory of propagations of oscillations, Chap XII, in: Diﬀerential anf Integral Equations of Mathematical Physics, F.Frank and P

S.L. Sobolev, Some questions in the theory of propagations of oscillations, Chap XII, in: Diﬀerential anf Integral Equations of Mathematical Physics, F.Frank and P. Mizes (eds), Leningrad-Moscow (1937) pp 468-617.[Russian]

1937
[16]

Diﬀraction and reﬂection of pulses by wedges and cor- ners

Keller J, Blank A. Diﬀraction and reﬂection of pulses by wedges and cor- ners. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics . 1951; 4(1):75–95. DOI:10.1002/cpa.3160040109

1951 doi
[17]

The diﬀraction of an arbitrary pulse by a wedge

Kay I. The diﬀraction of an arbitrary pulse by a wedge. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 1953; 6:521-546

1953
[18]

On the diﬀraction and reﬂection of waves and pulses by wedges and corners

Oberhettinger F. On the diﬀraction and reﬂection of waves and pulses by wedges and corners. Journal of Research National Bureau of Standarts . 1958; 61(2):343–365

1958
[19]

Diﬀracion at Poligons and Polyhedrons

Borovikov V.A. Diﬀracion at Poligons and Polyhedrons. Moscow: Nauka, (1966)

1966
[20]

Time domains scattering by an impedance wedge for skew incidence

Bernard JML, Pelosi G, Manara G, Freni A. Time domains scattering by an impedance wedge for skew incidence. Proceeding conference ICEAA 1991: 11-14

1991
[21]

Bernard JML. Progresses on the diﬀraction by a wedge: transient solution for line source illumination, single face contribution to scattered ﬁeld, anew consequence of reciprocity on the spectral function. Revue Technique Thomson 1993;25(4):1209– 1220

1993
[22]

On the time domain scattering by a passive classical frequency dependent-shaped region in a lossy dispersive medium

Bernard JML. On the time domain scattering by a passive classical frequency dependent-shaped region in a lossy dispersive medium. Annals of Telecommunica- tion 1994; 49(11-12):673-683. 21

1994
[23]

Time-dependent plane wave diﬀraction by a half-plane: explicit solu- tion for Rawlins’ mixed initial boundary value problem

Rottbrand K. Time-dependent plane wave diﬀraction by a half-plane: explicit solu- tion for Rawlins’ mixed initial boundary value problem. Z.Angew. Math. Mech. 1998; 78(5): 321-335

1998
[24]

Exact solution for time-dependent diﬀraction of plane waves by semi- inﬁnite soft/hard wedges and half-planes, 1998

Rottbrand K. Exact solution for time-dependent diﬀraction of plane waves by semi- inﬁnite soft/hard wedges and half-planes, 1998. Preprint 1984 Technical University Darmstadt

1998
[25]

Time-dependent scattering of gener- alized plane waves by wedges

Komech AI, Merzon AE, De la Paz Mendez JE. Time-dependent scattering of gener- alized plane waves by wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2015; 38:4774-4785. DOI:10.1002/mma.3391

2015 doi
[26]

On Sommerfeld representation and unique- ness in scattering by wedges

Komech AI, Mauser NJ, Merzon AE. On Sommerfeld representation and unique- ness in scattering by wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2005; 28(2):147-183. DOI:10.1002/mma.553

2005 doi
[27]

DN-Scattering of a plane wave by wedges

De la Paz M´ endez JE, Merzon AE. DN-Scattering of a plane wave by wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2011; 34(15):1843-1872. DOI:10.1002/mma.1484

2011 doi
[28]

Scattering of a plane wave by hard-soft wedges

De la Paz Mendez JE, Merzon AE. Scattering of a plane wave by hard-soft wedges. Recent Progress in Operator Theory and its Applications. Series: Operator Theory: Advances and Applications. 2012; 220:207-227

2012
[29]

An explicit formula for the nonstationary diﬀracted wave scattered on a NN-wedge

Esquivel Navarrete A, Merzon AE. An explicit formula for the nonstationary diﬀracted wave scattered on a NN-wedge. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae . 2015; 136(1):119–145. DOI:10.1007/s10440-014-9943-7

2015 doi
[30]

On the Keller- Blank solution to the scattering problem of pulses by wedges

Merzon AE, Komech AI, De la Paz M´ endez JE, Villalba Vega TJ. On the Keller- Blank solution to the scattering problem of pulses by wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2015; 38:2035–2040. DOI:10.1002/mma.3202

2015 doi
[31]

Limiting amplitude principle in the scattering by Wedges

Komech AI, Merzon AE. Limiting amplitude principle in the scattering by Wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2006; 29:1147-1185. DOI:10.1002/mma.719

2006 doi
[32]

Elliptic boundary value problems on manifolds with piecewise smooth boundary

Komech AI. Elliptic boundary value problems on manifolds with piecewise smooth boundary. Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik . 1973; 21(1):91-135

1973
[33]

Elliptic diﬀerential equations with constant coeﬃcients in a cone.Moscow University Mathematics Bulletin

Komech AI. Elliptic diﬀerential equations with constant coeﬃcients in a cone.Moscow University Mathematics Bulletin . 1974; 29(2):140-145

1974
[34]

A method of complex characteristics for elliptic problems in angles and its applications

Komech A, Merzon A, Zhevandrov P. A method of complex characteristics for elliptic problems in angles and its applications. American Mathematical Society Translation. 2002; 206(2):125-159

2002
[35]

A Riemann surface approach for diﬀraction from rational wedges

Ehrhardt T, Nolasco AP, Speck FO. A Riemann surface approach for diﬀraction from rational wedges. Operators and Matrices. 2014; 8(2):301–355. DOI:10.7153/oam-08- 17. 22

2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

Wave diﬀraction by wedges having arbitrary aperture angle

Castro LP, Kapanadze D. Wave diﬀraction by wedges having arbitrary aperture angle. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications . 2015; 421(2):1295–1314. DOI:10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.07.080

work page doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.07.080 2015

[2] [11]

Sommerfeld’s solution as the limiting amplitude and asymp- totics for narrow wedges

Komech AI, Merzon AE, Esquivel Navarrete A, De La Paz M´ endez JE, Vil- lalba Vega TJ. Sommerfeld’s solution as the limiting amplitude and asymp- totics for narrow wedges. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences . 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.5075

work page doi:10.1002/mma.5075 2018

[3] [1]

Mathematische theorie der diﬀraction

Sommerfeld A. Mathematische theorie der diﬀraction. Mathematische Annalen. 1896; 47:317–374

work page

[4] [2]

Optics (Lectures on theoretical physics, Vol

Sommerfeld A. Optics (Lectures on theoretical physics, Vol. 4). New York, Academic Press, 1954

work page 1954

[5] [3]

Nagem, M

R.J. Nagem, M. Zampolli, G. Sandri, Arnol Sommerfeld. Theory of Diﬀraction, Progress in Mathematical Physics V.35. Springer Science Business media New York. Originally published in Birkha. Boston in 2004

work page 2004

[6] [4]

A uniqueness and a new solution for Sommerfeld’s and other diﬀraction problems

Peters A.S., Stoker J.J. A uniqueness and a new solution for Sommerfeld’s and other diﬀraction problems. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 1954. 7(3):565-585. DOI:10.1002/cpa.3160070307

work page doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070307 1954

[7] [5]

Heins, A

A.E. Heins, A. Arbor. The Sommerfeld Half-Plane Problem Revisited I: The solution of a pair of complex Wiener-H¨ opf integral equations. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences. 1982 4: 74-90

work page 1982

[8] [6]

F., Teixeira F.S

Dos Santos A. F., Teixeira F.S. The Sommerfeld problem revisted: solution spaces and the edges conditions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications . 1989; 143: 341-357

work page 1989