pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10900 · v1 · pith:TJMKOU6Knew · submitted 2019-06-26 · 📡 eess.SP

A Linear Model for Microwave Imaging of Highly Conductive Scatterers

Shilong Sun , Bert Jan Kooij , Alexander G. Yarovoy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 15:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords microwave imaginginverse scatteringhighly conductive scattererssum-of-norm regularizationmultiple measurement vectorsjoint sparsitylinear sampling method
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single-frequency linear model with sum-of-norm regularization resolves highly conductive scatterers more sharply than linear sampling methods.

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

The paper introduces a linear model for the inverse scattering problem of highly conductive objects using a multiple measurement vectors approach at one frequency. It enforces joint sparsity on the induced currents via sum-of-norm regularization, based on their concentration at scatterer boundaries. No prior information or scattering approximations are needed, allowing broad application. Results from transverse magnetic, transverse electric, synthetic, and Fresnel data show improved resolution over the linear sampling method and its enhanced version, with only moderately higher computational demands.

Core claim

The central claim is that formulating the inverse scattering problem as a multiple measurement vectors model and solving it with sum-of-norm regularization yields a linear method capable of imaging highly conductive scatterers at a single frequency with superior resolving power compared to existing linear sampling techniques.

What carries the argument

The multiple measurement vectors model with sum-of-norm regularization, which captures the joint sparse distribution of induced currents on object boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

Induced currents are mostly distributed on the boundaries of the scatterers.

What would settle it

An experiment on Fresnel data showing that the proposed method does not achieve higher resolving ability than the linear sampling method for closely spaced conductive objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10900 by Alexander G. Yarovoy, Bert Jan Kooij, Shilong Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The configuration of the inverse scattering problem with respect to highly conductive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Probing the Pareto curve: the update of parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Measurement configuration of Simulation 1 and 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation coefficient curves in terms of transmitter number in Simulation 1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation coefficient curves in terms of receiver number in Simulation 1 and 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatterer geometry and its reconstructed shapes in Simulation 1. 30 dB Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatterer geometry and its reconstructed shapes in Simulation 1. 10 dB Gaussian noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reconstruction residual and CV residual curves by processing the TM-polarized data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scatterer shape (the value of the indicator function in dB) reconstructed by processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatterer geometry and its reconstructed shapes in Simulation 2. 30 dB Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scatterer geometry and its reconstructed shapes in Simulation 2. 10 dB Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scatterer shape (the value of the indicator function in dB) reconstructed by process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Measurement configuration of the Fresnel data-sets: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Geometry of the scatterers: (a) The rectangular metallic cylinder; (b) The “U [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Scatterer shape (the value of the indicator function in dB) reconstructed by process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Scatterer shape (the value of the indicator function in dB) reconstructed by process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Scatterer shape (the value of the indicator function in dB) reconstructed by process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Reconstruction residual curve and CV residual curve of the Fresnel data-sets: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, a linear model based on multiple measurement vectors model is proposed to formulate the inverse scattering problem of highly conductive objects at one single frequency. Considering the induced currents which are mostly distributed on the boundaries of the scatterers, joint sparse structure is enforced by a sum-of-norm regularization. Since no \textit{a priori} information is required and no approximation of the scattering model has been made, the proposed method is versatile. Imaging results with transverse magnetic and transverse electric polarized synthetic data and Fresnel data demonstrate its higher resolving ability than both linear sampling method and its improved version with higher, but acceptable, computational complexity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a linear multiple-measurement-vector (MMV) model for the single-frequency inverse scattering problem of highly conductive objects. It enforces joint sparsity on the induced currents via sum-of-norm regularization, motivated by the premise that currents are mostly distributed on scatterer boundaries. The method is presented as versatile because it requires no a priori information and introduces no approximation to the scattering integral equation. Imaging results on TM/TE synthetic data and Fresnel experimental data are claimed to demonstrate higher resolving power than the linear sampling method (LSM) and an improved LSM variant, at the expense of higher but acceptable computational cost.

Significance. If the boundary-current premise is shown to hold for the reported data sets and the resolution gains are supported by quantitative metrics, the MMV-plus-sum-of-norms formulation could supply a practical linear route to imaging highly conductive targets without multi-frequency data or strong priors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'higher resolving ability' is asserted without any quantitative metrics (e.g., resolution measures, RMSE, or visual error maps), error analysis, or tabulated comparisons; this prevents assessment of whether the reported improvement is statistically meaningful or merely visual.
  2. [Abstract / §2] Abstract / §2 (model derivation): the sum-of-norm regularization is justified solely by the statement that 'induced currents which are mostly distributed on the boundaries of the scatterers,' yet the manuscript contains no verification that the reconstructed currents in the synthetic TM/TE or Fresnel experiments actually exhibit this distribution (e.g., by plotting |J| inside versus on the boundary or comparing to full-wave reference currents); without this check the regularization choice is an untested modeling assumption whose validity directly determines whether the observed resolution gain can be attributed to the proposed structure.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'no approximation of the scattering model has been made' is in tension with the introduction of the joint-sparsity penalty, which is an additional modeling choice not present in the exact integral equation; the claim of versatility therefore rests on the unverified boundary-current premise rather than on an exact forward model alone.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the qualifier 'with higher, but acceptable, computational complexity' is imprecise; concrete runtime or flop-count comparisons versus LSM should be supplied in the results section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and support for the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of 'higher resolving ability' is asserted without any quantitative metrics (e.g., resolution measures, RMSE, or visual error maps), error analysis, or tabulated comparisons; this prevents assessment of whether the reported improvement is statistically meaningful or merely visual.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add RMSE values computed on the synthetic TM/TE data sets, a table comparing resolution metrics (e.g., FWHM of reconstructed features) against LSM, and brief error-map discussion in the results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / §2] Abstract / §2 (model derivation): the sum-of-norm regularization is justified solely by the statement that 'induced currents which are mostly distributed on the boundaries of the scatterers,' yet the manuscript contains no verification that the reconstructed currents in the synthetic TM/TE or Fresnel experiments actually exhibit this distribution (e.g., by plotting |J| inside versus on the boundary or comparing to full-wave reference currents); without this check the regularization choice is an untested modeling assumption whose validity directly determines whether the observed resolution gain can be attributed to the proposed structure.

    Authors: The boundary-concentration premise follows from standard electromagnetic theory for highly conductive scatterers. While the original submission did not include explicit verification plots, we will add figures of the reconstructed |J| magnitude for representative synthetic cases to illustrate boundary localization. Direct comparison to full-wave reference currents is not feasible within the scope of the present linear model and data sets, as the paper does not compute or store such references. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'no approximation of the scattering model has been made' is in tension with the introduction of the joint-sparsity penalty, which is an additional modeling choice not present in the exact integral equation; the claim of versatility therefore rests on the unverified boundary-current premise rather than on an exact forward model alone.

    Authors: We will revise the wording to clarify that the forward scattering integral equation is retained exactly (no Born or other approximation), while the joint-sparsity term is a regularization choice in the inverse solver. The versatility statement refers to the absence of a priori scatterer geometry or multi-frequency data; we will rephrase the abstract to separate the exact forward model from the regularization strategy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes a linear MMV forward model for the inverse scattering problem and motivates the sum-of-norm regularization directly from the stated physical premise that induced currents are mostly on scatterer boundaries. This is an explicit modeling assumption, not a quantity derived from or fitted to the target imaging results. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to its inputs by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for the central claim, and the reported resolution gains are obtained by applying the regularized solver to independent synthetic and Fresnel data sets. The derivation is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed beyond the boundary-current assumption used to motivate sparsity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5630 in / 1111 out tokens · 16020 ms · 2026-05-25T15:40:52.522632+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Hadamard, Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations

    J. Hadamard, Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations . Mi- neola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Two-dimensional location and shape reconstruction,

    R. Kleinman and P. den Berg, “Two-dimensional location and shape reconstruction,” Radio Science, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1157–1169, 1994

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    A contrast source inversion method,

    P. M. Van Den Berg and R. E. Kleinman, “A contrast source inversion method,” Inverse problems, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1607–1620, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Microwave imaging of inhomogeneous objects made of a finite number of dielectric and conductive materials from experimental data,

    O. F´ eron, B. Duchˆ ene, and A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Microwave imaging of inhomogeneous objects made of a finite number of dielectric and conductive materials from experimental data,” Inverse Problems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. S95–S115, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Inversion of multi-frequency experimental data for imaging complex objects by a DTA–CSI method,

    C. Yu, L.-P. Song, and Q. H. Liu, “Inversion of multi-frequency experimental data for imaging complex objects by a DTA–CSI method,” Inverse Problems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. S165–S178, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Cross-correlated contrast source inversion,

    S. Sun, B. J. Kooij, T. Jin, and A. G. Yarovoy, “Cross-correlated contrast source inversion,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2592–2603, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Numerical linear algebra for nonlinear microwave imaging,

    F. Di Benedetto, C. Estatico, J. G. Nagy, and M. Pastorino, “Numerical linear algebra for nonlinear microwave imaging,” Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis, vol. 33, pp. 105–125, Oct. 2009. 26 0 2 04 06 08 0 Iteration number 10-1 100 Normalized residual Reconstruction residual CV residual 20 40 60 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 (a) 0 2 04 06 08 0 1 0 0 1 2...

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Time reversal imaging of obscured targets from multistatic data,

    A. Devaney, “Time reversal imaging of obscured targets from multistatic data,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1600–1610, 2005

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Compressive diffuse optical tomography: non- iterative exact reconstruction using joint sparsity,

    O. Lee, J. M. Kim, Y. Bresler, and J. C. Ye, “Compressive diffuse optical tomography: non- iterative exact reconstruction using joint sparsity,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1129–1142, 2011

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    A simple method for solving inverse scattering problems in the resonance region,

    D. Colton and A. Kirsch, “A simple method for solving inverse scattering problems in the resonance region,” Inverse problems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 383–393, 1996

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    A simple method using Morozov’s discrepancy principle for solving inverse scattering problems,

    D. Colton, M. Piana, and R. Potthast, “A simple method using Morozov’s discrepancy principle for solving inverse scattering problems,” Inverse Problems , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1477–1493, 1997

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

    An improved simple method for imaging the shape of complex targets,

    L. Crocco, L. Di Donato, I. Catapano, and T. Isernia, “An improved simple method for imaging the shape of complex targets,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 843–851, 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    A linear sampling method for near-field inverse problems in elastodynamics,

    S. N. Fata and B. B. Guzina, “A linear sampling method for near-field inverse problems in elastodynamics,” Inverse problems, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 713–736, 2004. 27

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Why linear sampling works,

    T. Arens, “Why linear sampling works,” Inverse Problems , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 163–173, 2003

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    Colton and R

    D. Colton and R. Kress, Inverse acoustic and electromagnetic scattering theory , 3rd ed. New York: Springer, 2013, vol. 93

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Three-dimensional near-field microwave imaging using hybrid linear sampling and level set methods in a medium with compact support,

    M. R. Eskandari, R. Safian, and M. Dehmollaian, “Three-dimensional near-field microwave imaging using hybrid linear sampling and level set methods in a medium with compact support,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 5117– 5125, 2014

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    D. J. Daniels, Ground penetrating radar. Wiley Online Library, 2005

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Newton-Kantorovitch algorithm applied to an electromagnetic inverse problem,

    A. Roger, “Newton-Kantorovitch algorithm applied to an electromagnetic inverse problem,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 232–238, 1981

    work page 1981

  19. [19]

    Electromagnetic inverse scattering of multiple two-dimensional perfectly con- ducting objects by the differential evolution strategy,

    A. Qing, “Electromagnetic inverse scattering of multiple two-dimensional perfectly con- ducting objects by the differential evolution strategy,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1251–1262, 2003

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Electromagnetic inverse scattering of multiple perfectly conducting cylinders by differential evolution strategy with individuals in groups (GDES),

    A. Qing, “Electromagnetic inverse scattering of multiple perfectly conducting cylinders by differential evolution strategy with individuals in groups (GDES),” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1223–1229, 2004

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    A crack identification microwave procedure based on a genetic algorithm for nondestructive testing,

    S. Caorsi, A. Massa, and M. Pastorino, “A crack identification microwave procedure based on a genetic algorithm for nondestructive testing,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1812–1820, 2001

    work page 2001

  22. [22]

    Evolutionary opti- mization as applied to inverse scattering problems,

    P. Rocca, M. Benedetti, M. Donelli, D. Franceschini, and A. Massa, “Evolutionary opti- mization as applied to inverse scattering problems,” Inverse Problems, vol. 25, no. 12, p. 123003 (41pp), 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Multifrequency particle swarm optimiza- tion for enhanced multiresolution GPR microwave imaging,

    M. Salucci, L. Poli, N. Anselmi, and A. Massa, “Multifrequency particle swarm optimiza- tion for enhanced multiresolution GPR microwave imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1305–1317, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Mt–bcs-based microwave imaging approach through minimum-norm current expansion,

    L. Poli, G. Oliveri, F. Viani, and A. Massa, “Mt–bcs-based microwave imaging approach through minimum-norm current expansion,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propa- gation, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4722–4732, 2013

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Solving the PEC inverse scattering problem with a linear model,

    S. Sun, B. J. Kooij, and A. G. Yarovoy, “Solving the PEC inverse scattering problem with a linear model,” in URSI International Symposium on Electromagnetic Theory (EMTS) , Aug. 2016, pp. 144–147

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Theoretical and empirical results for recovery from multiple measurements,

    E. Van Den Berg and M. P. Friedlander, “Theoretical and empirical results for recovery from multiple measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2516–2527, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Linearized three-dimensional electromagnetic contrast source inversion and its applications to half-space configurations,

    S. Sun, B. J. Kooij, and A. Yarovoy, “Linearized three-dimensional electromagnetic contrast source inversion and its applications to half-space configurations,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3475–3487, June 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions,

    E. van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander, “Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 890–912, 2008

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Sparse optimization with least-squares con- straints,

    E. Van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander, “Sparse optimization with least-squares con- straints,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1201–1229, 2011. 28

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Compressed sensing with cross validation,

    R. Ward, “Compressed sensing with cross validation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 5773–5782, 2009

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Cross Validation in Compressive Sensing and its Application of OMP-CV Algorithm

    J. Zhang, L. Chen, P. T. Boufounos, and Y. Gu, “Cross validation in compressive sensing and its application of OMP-CV algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06373 , 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    3D finite-difference frequency-domain method for plasmonics and nanophoton- ics,

    W. Shin, “3D finite-difference frequency-domain method for plasmonics and nanophoton- ics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, The Department of Electrical Engineering, USA, 2013

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Special section: Testing inversion algorithms against exper- imental data,

    K. Belkebir and M. Saillard, “Special section: Testing inversion algorithms against exper- imental data,” Inverse Problems, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1565–1571, 2001

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    The field equivalence principle: Illustration of the establishment of the non-intuitive null fields,

    S. R. Rengarajan and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “The field equivalence principle: Illustration of the establishment of the non-intuitive null fields,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 122–128, 2000

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    Novel methods to accelerate CS radar imaging by NUFFT,

    S. Sun, G. Zhu, and T. Jin, “Novel methods to accelerate CS radar imaging by NUFFT,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 557–566, Jan 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    Nonmonotone spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets,

    E. G. Birgin, J. M. Mart´ ınez, and M. Raydan, “Nonmonotone spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1196–1211, 2000

    work page 2000

  38. [38]

    Inexact spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets,

    E. G. Birgin, J. M. Mart´ ınez, and M. Raydan, “Inexact spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets,” IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 539–559, 2003

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    Projected Barzilai-Borwein methods for large-scale box- constrained quadratic programming,

    Y.-H. Dai and R. Fletcher, “Projected Barzilai-Borwein methods for large-scale box- constrained quadratic programming,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 21–47, 2005

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Convex optimization for generalized sparse recovery,

    E. van den Berg, “Convex optimization for generalized sparse recovery,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2009

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    Convex analysis,

    R. T. Rockafellar, “Convex analysis,” Princeton, NJ, USA, 1970

    work page 1970

  42. [42]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization . New York: Cambridge university press, 2004

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Inverse-scattering method for dielectric objects based on the reconstruction of the nonmeasurable equivalent current density,

    S. Caorsi and G. L. Gragnani, “Inverse-scattering method for dielectric objects based on the reconstruction of the nonmeasurable equivalent current density,”Radio Science, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1999

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    On simple methods for shape reconstruction of unknown scatterers,

    I. Catapano, L. Crocco, and T. Isernia, “On simple methods for shape reconstruction of unknown scatterers,” IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation , vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1431–1436, 2007

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    The linear sampling method as a way to quantitative inverse scattering,

    L. Crocco, I. Catapano, L. Di Donato, and T. Isernia, “The linear sampling method as a way to quantitative inverse scattering,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1844–1853, 2012. 29

    work page 2012