Paper detail

Weight of single and recurrent scattering in the reflection matrix of complex media

In a heterogeneous medium, the wavefield can be decomposed as an infinite series known as the Born expansion. Each term of the Born expansion corresponds to a scattering order, it is thus theoretically possible to discriminate single and multiple scattering field components. Experimentally, what is actually measured is the total field in which all scattering orders interfere. Conventional imaging methods usually rely on the assumption that the multiple scattering contribution can be disregarded. In a back-scattering configuration, this assumption is valid for small depths, and begins to fail for depths larger than the scattering mean-free path $\ell_s$. It is therefore a key issue to estimate the relative amount of single and multiple scattering in experimental data. To this end, a single scattering estimator $\hatρ$ computed from the reflection matrix has been introduced in order to assess the weight of single scattering in the backscattered wavefield. In this article, the meaning of this estimator is investigated and a particular attention is given to recurrent scattering. In a diffraction-limited experiment, a multiple scattering sequence is said to be recurrent if the first and last scattering events occur in the same resolution cell. Recurrent scattering is shown to be responsible for correlations between single scattering and higher scattering orders of the Born expansion, inducing a bias to the estimator $\hatρ$ that should rather be termed confocal scattering ratio. Interestingly, a more robust estimator is built by projecting the reflection matrix in a focused basis. The argument is sustained by numerical simulations as well as ultrasonic data obtained around 1.5~MHz in a model medium made of nylon rods immersed in water. From a more general perspective, this work raises fundamental questions about the impact of recurrent scattering on wave imaging.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.