Coordinate-Residual Physics-Driven Neural Network for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering

Bo Qi; Peixian Han; Yali Zong; Yutong Du; Zicheng Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Coordinate-Residual Physics-Driven Neural Network for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A physics-driven network reconstructs 3-D permittivity directly from scattered fields, without a preliminary image, at 2.10% average error versus 7.97% for CSI and 3.99% for L2/3-FBE-WCIE, with 5.5- and 12.1-fold speedups.

desk verdict A genuinely new PDNN twist that likely works on the reported cases, but the speed-up numbers need a controlled hardware-matched benchmark before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09382 v1 pith:DTP773FS submitted 2026-08-10 physics.comp-ph cs.LGphysics.app-ph

Yutong Du , Zicheng Liu , Bo Qi , Yali Zong , Peixian Han This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.comp-phcs.LGphysics.app-ph

keywords electromagneticinversescatteringphysics-drivenneuralnetwork3-Dvolumetricimagingcoordinateencodingresidualconvolutionalcontrastsourceinversiontotalvariationregularizationcomplexpermittivityreconstruction

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 proposes CRPDNN, a physics-driven neural network that reconstructs the unknown permittivity contrast of a 3-D object directly from measured scattered fields. Unlike earlier accelerated PDNN frameworks, it does not first compute a rough reconstruction to choose a subregion; instead the whole volume is represented by a residual convolutional network whose input includes normalized spatial coordinates, and only the network weights are optimized for each measurement by minimizing a data-consistency loss. On the reported noise-free 3-D synthetic cases, CRPDNN attains an average relative error of 2.10%, compared with 7.97% for CSI and 3.99% for L2/3-FBE-WCIE, while being roughly 5.5 and 12.1 times faster. The paper also shows the method keeps the lowest error among the three solvers under 20 dB and 10 dB noise and reconstructs experimental 3-D targets from a public database. If correct, this demonstrates that a physics-driven network can outperform classical iterative solvers in both accuracy and speed for volumetric electromagnetic imaging without labeled training data.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the coordinate-residual network: an 18-channel input formed by concatenating two zero-valued contrast channels with a 16-channel coordinate encoding $\gamma(\mathbf{r}) = \{x, y, z, r^2, \sin(n\pi\xi), \cos(n\pi\xi)\}_{\xi \in \{x,y,z\}, n=1,2}$, processed by ten dilated residual blocks with dilation rates $[1,1,2,2,4,4,8,4,2,1]$ and a residual scaling factor of $0.1$, and mapped to a two-channel output giving the real and imaginary parts of the complex contrast. The coordinate encoding provides explicit spatial information, so the network can represent the volumetric contrast without any preliminary reconstruction; the dilated blocks enlarge the receptive field while preserving voxel resolution. The optimization loss is the normalized data-consistency term $\|\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{sca}}_{\mathrm{mea}} - \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{\mathrm{sca}}(\hat{\chi})\|^2 / \|\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{sca}}_{\mathrm{mea}}\|^2$ plus a ReLU lower-bound penalty on the real part of the contrast and a total-variation term on its magnitude, with the two regularization weights adapted per iteration by scale balancing.

What would settle it

A reader could rerun CRPDNN on the 10 dB noisy cases for 600 iterations with several random network initializations and compare the spread of final reconstructions and data-consistency values; if the spread is comparable to the reported error gaps between CRPDNN and the baselines, or if doubling the iteration budget changes the reported errors materially, then the fixed 300-iteration schedule and initialization are load-bearing rather than the network representation itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the unknown complex contrast in a 3-D electromagnetic inverse scattering problem can be represented as the output of a residual convolutional network fed with normalized spatial coordinates and zero initial contrast, and that optimizing this network's weights by a data-consistency loss yields reconstructions more accurate and much faster than classical iterative solvers. In the reported tests the average relative error is 2.10% versus 7.97% for CSI and 3.99% for L2/3-FBE-WCIE, with about 5.5- and 12.1-fold speedups; the advantage persists under 20 dB and 10 dB noise and on measured 3-D experimental data, where the two targets are reconstructed at 2.54% and 0.59% relative error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 300 iterations of an adaptive-moment optimizer, started from zero contrast, drive the CRPDNN data-consistency loss to a physically correct contrast rather than to a local minimum or a trivial solution, a step the paper does not analyze.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the reported noise-free 3-D synthetic suite, CRPDNN reaches 2.10% average relative error versus 7.97% for CSI and 3.99% for L2/3-FBE-WCIE, with about 5.5- and 12.1-fold runtime reductions.
CRPDNN reconstructs complex-valued contrast, including both real and imaginary parts of relative permittivity, and under AWGN at 20 dB and 10 dB it keeps the lowest relative error among the three solvers.
Because no preliminary reconstruction or subregion selection is needed, CRPDNN avoids the failure mode that produced relative errors of 375-432% in subregion-based PDNN baselines on difficult 2-D cases.
On measured 3-D data, the method reconstructs the two tested targets at 2.54% and 0.59% relative error, indicating operation on real experimental measurements rather than only synthetic cases.
The fixed 300-iteration optimization makes runtime roughly constant per case independent of target complexity, about 8 s in the 2-D comparison and 72-222 s in the 3-D synthetic cases.

Reading between the lines

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

An implicit consequence the authors do not spell out: because CRPDNN optimizes per measurement rather than training on a population, its practical value hinges on whether the fixed optimization budget and network width scale to larger DOI discretizations and higher frequencies without re-tuning.
A testable extension: apply CRPDNN to recover both permittivity and conductivity, or to multi-frequency data, by augmenting the coordinate encoding with frequency channels; the paper's experiments only cover co-polarized data.
If the reported speedups hold on larger problems, the coordinate-residual representation could be combined with progressive voxel refinement or multigrid-style continuation to push toward real-time 3-D imaging, a direction the paper mentions as future work but does not demonstrate.
The adaptive scale-balanced weighting implies that per-sample tuning of regularization strength should be unnecessary; a reader could probe this by testing targets whose contrast magnitude lies far outside the tested range.

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 core idea here is real: representing the unknown contrast as a coordinate-residual function and optimizing a dilated residual CNN against the data-consistency loss, with no preliminary reconstruction, is not present in the cited PDNN papers. And it appears to work on the reported cases. The accuracy gains over CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE are consistent across seven synthetic 3D cases and two Fresnel targets, and the Fresnel results (2.54% and 0.59% error) give the paper a genuine proof of concept.

What it does well: the forward model is standard FFT-accelerated VIE, the loss terms are clearly stated, and the scale-balanced adaptive weighting is a sensible way to avoid hand-tuning. The 2D comparison against four PDNN variants is the most informative section: CRPDNN avoids the catastrophic subregion-selection failures (432% and 376% errors) while staying competitive on the easy cases. The code link is to a group account, not a repo, which is a minor but real gap.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the speedup claim (5.5x and 12.1x) is not controlled. The paper says all methods ran on the same workstation, but never states whether CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE used the CPU or GPU. CRPDNN is a 48-channel 3D CNN on an RTX 4090; the classical solvers are FFT-accelerated and almost certainly CPU-only. That conflates algorithmic efficiency with hardware acceleration. The runtimes need to be re-measured on identical hardware with matched stopping criteria before the abstract numbers are taken at face value. Second, baseline hyperparameters are missing: no iteration counts, tolerances, or whether the baselines ran to convergence. Third, no error bars and single noise realizations. Fourth, the convergence concern about local minima is real but secondary, because all reported cases show low errors; a trivial solution would show up in the numbers.

Who this is for: computational electromagnetics and inverse-scattering researchers who want a fast single-case solver without labeled training data. The paper deserves a serious referee. I would accept it for review, ask for a controlled benchmark, error bars, and a specific code link. The central idea is sound, and the evidence, once cleaned up, should back the claims.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-driven neural network solver, CRPDNN, for 3-D electromagnetic inverse scattering. The network is initialized with zero contrast plus a normalized-coordinate encoding, parameterizes the unknown complex contrast distribution with a dilated residual convolutional architecture, and is optimized per measurement by minimizing a data-consistency loss together with adaptive bound and total-variation regularization. No labeled training data or preliminary reconstruction is used. The authors report quantitative comparisons with classical iterative solvers (CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE) on 3-D synthetic cases, including noise-contaminated measurements, a supplementary 2-D comparison with existing PDNN baselines, and reconstructions from the 3-D Fresnel experimental database. The central claims are that CRPDNN achieves lower relative reconstruction error and substantially shorter runtime than the classical baselines, and that it avoids the instability of subregion-selection-based PDNN frameworks.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it shows that a per-sample physics-driven network without preliminary reconstruction, labeled data, or explicit subregion selection can solve nonlinear 3-D inverse scattering problems with accuracy competitive with or better than classical iterative methods. The forward model and loss formulation are standard and clearly stated, the loss weights and architecture constants are fixed across experiments, and the quantitative tables support the accuracy claim for the reported cases. The 2-D comparison with PDNN-Full, PDNN-Subregion, IPDNN-InitFull, and IPDNN is informative and gives concrete evidence on the failure modes of subregion selection. However, the runtime advantage is not yet a controlled comparison, and the noise-robustness experiments lack statistical reproducibility because only one noise realization per SNR is reported.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.4; Tables 1-4] The central speedup claim (roughly 5.5-fold and 12.1-fold over CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE) is not supported by a controlled benchmark. The paper states that all methods were evaluated on a workstation with an Intel i9 CPU and an RTX 4090 GPU, but it does not state which device each method used, nor the iteration counts, stopping tolerances, or convergence criteria for CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE. Since CRPDNN is a GPU-oriented convolutional network while the classical baselines are typically CPU-oriented FFT-accelerated solvers, the reported wall-clock comparisons may conflate algorithmic efficiency with hardware acceleration. The authors should rerun or report baselines on the same device as CRPDNN (or both devices), with matched stopping criteria, and disclose the exact code versions. Without this, the speed component of the abstract's central claim is not verifiable.
[Section 4.3; Tables 3-4] The noise-robustness experiments report only one noise realization per SNR (20 dB and 10 dB). Because additive white Gaussian noise is random, the relative errors in Tables 3 and 4 may vary substantially across realizations, especially for the smaller structures in Cases 2 and 3. The authors should report means and standard deviations (or median and interquartile range) over at least several independent noise realizations, and state whether the reported runtimes correspond to a single run or an average. This is needed to support the claim that CRPDNN 'maintains reliable reconstruction performance under noisy measurements.'
[Sections 3.3-3.4] The method minimizes a nonconvex data-consistency loss over the network parameters using Adam for a fixed 300 iterations from a zero-contrast initialization, but the paper provides no convergence analysis, loss-curve reporting, or failure-mode study. All seven reported 3-D synthetic cases converge to low-error reconstructions, which is encouraging, but the absence of any failure cases makes it hard to assess robustness of the 'no preliminary reconstruction' design. I ask the authors to report final data-consistency loss values and convergence curves for each case, and to test sensitivity to the random seed of Adam, the learning-rate schedule, and the 300-iteration budget. This would directly address whether the fixed optimization budget is load-bearing for the reported accuracy.
[Section 5] The Fresnel experimental results report relative reconstruction errors of 2.54% and 0.59%, but the paper does not explain how the ground-truth contrast for these measured targets is defined on the 32x32x32 voxel grid, how the forward model is calibrated to the experimental setup (including the plane-wave approximation and receiver positions), or whether these error values are comparable to the synthetic-case errors. Since the experimental section is used to claim practical applicability, the metric definition and any calibration steps should be described.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'A WGN' should be 'AWGN'; similarly, 'L2/3-FBE-WCIE' appears with inconsistent spacing and subscript styling.
[Section 3.4] The code availability statement points to a group GitHub account (github.com/Physics-driven-methods) rather than a specific repository, which makes the claimed code release difficult to verify. A direct repository URL or DOI would be preferable.
[Table 5] The table header contains formatting artifacts such as 'PDNN-F ull' and 'IPDNN-InitF ull'; the column headers should be cleaned.
[Section 4.4] The comparison with PDNN frameworks uses 2-D examples from a different configuration than the 3-D experiments; the authors state this is for fair comparison, but they should explicitly caution that the 2-D CRPDNN runtimes (8 s) are not directly comparable to the 3-D runtimes reported earlier.
[Section 4.1] The visualizations in Figures 3-6 use opacity thresholds that may obscure weak scatterers; reporting the exact thresholding procedure in the text is helpful, but the figures would benefit from also showing a fixed slice without opacity-based suppression.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CRPDNN predictions arise from a data-consistency optimization, not from the target contrast; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The network takes zero-valued contrast channels plus normalized coordinate features, produces a contrast estimate chi_hat(k), and is optimized against the data-consistency loss LData = ||Esca_mea - Esca_hat(chi_hat)||^2 / ||Esca_mea||^2 (Eq. 7). The target contrast is never used in the loss or in the adaptive weight updates (Eq. 10); it appears only in the evaluation metrics reported in Tables 1-5. Thus the reconstructed contrast is a genuine nonlinear solve of the forward model against measured scattered fields, not a retranscription of the truth. The regularization terms (Eqs. 8-9) are fixed physical priors with fixed scale factors, not fitted to the targets. The cited prior works [7], [25], [26], and [27] are used for context, for the PDNN baseline setting descriptions, and for the supplementary 2-D comparison; the central 3-D accuracy and speed claims against CSI and L2/3-FBE-WCIE do not depend on those citations. No uniqueness theorem, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged in new coordinates. The runtime comparisons in Tables 1-4 lack full disclosure of baseline stopping criteria and device-specific timings, but that is a benchmarking-reproducibility concern, not circularity. The paper's claimed predictions therefore do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of manually chosen hyperparameters (loss weights, residual scaling, optimization budget, architecture sizes, coordinate encoding frequencies) and on the domain assumptions that the forward model and the Fresnel data are accurate and that the per-case optimization finds meaningful solutions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Loss weighting coefficients rho_Bound and rho_TV = 0.05 and 0.02
Equation (10) sets the scale-balanced adaptive weights; these coefficients are chosen by hand and fixed for all experiments, controlling the balance between data fidelity and regularization. No ablation or sensitivity analysis is provided.
Residual scaling factor = 0.1
Section 3.1 applies a 0.1 factor to the residual mapping in each dilated block for stable feature updating; this is a manually chosen constant with no reported sensitivity study.
Maximum iterations and learning rate schedule = 300 iterations, lr=1e-3 halved every 150
Section 3.4 fixes the optimization budget and schedule; these choices affect the achieved error and runtime and are not justified by ablation.
Dilation rates and channel counts = dilation [1,1,2,2,4,4,8,4,2,1], 48/24 channels
Section 3.1 defines the receptive field and capacity of the network; these architecture hyperparameters are chosen without systematic search or ablation.
Coordinate encoding frequencies = n = 1, 2 in Eq. (4)
The sin/cos coordinate features use only two frequency levels; this design choice affects how spatial information is injected into the network.

assumptions (4)

standard math The vector volume integral equation with the dyadic Green's function is a valid forward model for the considered scattering configuration.
Invoked in Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(3), and used in the FFT-accelerated BiCGSTAB forward solver following [31].
domain assumption The Fresnel database measurements are accurately calibrated and match the simulation geometry and polarization configuration.
Used in Section 5 where experimental data are reconstructed; if the forward model does not match the measurement setup, the reported experimental errors would not validate the solver.
domain assumption Minimizing the data-consistency loss over the CRPDNN parameterization, starting from zero contrast and running Adam for 300 iterations, converges to a physically meaningful solution.
Stated in Sections 3.3 and 3.4; this is the core inductive-bias assumption of the per-case optimization. No convergence guarantee or local-minima analysis is given.
domain assumption The CNN with the chosen coordinate encoding has sufficient capacity to represent the contrast distributions of interest.
Implied by the architecture in Figure 2(b); if the network cannot represent the target, the data-consistency loss cannot be driven low.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coordinate-Residual Physics-Driven Neural Network for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTP773FS

@misc{pith2026260809382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coordinate-Residual Physics-Driven Neural Network for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTP773FS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09382}
}

abstract

Electromagnetic inverse scattering is a nonlinear and ill-posed problem, where accurate reconstruction is challenging due to measurement limitations, noise, and high computational costs, especially for 3-D imaging. Although physics-driven neural networks (PDNNs) reduce the dependence on labeled training data, existing accelerated PDNN frameworks often rely on preliminary reconstruction-based region selection, which may introduce instability when the selected region is inaccurate. In this paper, a coordinate-residual physics-driven neural network (CRPDNN) is proposed for 3-D electromagnetic inverse scattering. The proposed solver directly reconstructs the unknown contrast distribution using normalized spatial coordinates and a residual convolutional network, without requiring a preliminary reconstruction. For the reported noise-free 3-D synthetic cases, CRPDNN achieves an average relative error of 2.10\%, compared with 7.97\% for CSI and 3.99\% for $L_{2/3}$-FBE-WCIE, while providing approximately 5.5- and 12.1-fold speedups over the two baselines, respectively. Supplementary 2-D comparisons further confirm its stability and computational efficiency relative to existing PDNN frameworks. CRPDNN also maintains reliable reconstruction performance under noisy measurements, and the 3-D Fresnel experiments further indicate its potential for practical imaging applications. The related code is available at https://github.com/Physics-driven-methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09382 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Sketch of the proposed coordinate-residual physics-driven neural network (CRPDNN) solver. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Reconstruction results for four 3-D digit-like samples obtained using the proposed CRPDNN and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Reconstruction results for three 3-D complex samples obtained using the proposed CRPDNN and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Reconstruction results for three 3-D complex samples obtained using the proposed CRPDNN and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Reconstruction results for three 3-D complex samples obtained using the proposed CRPDNN and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Reconstruction comparison between the proposed CRPDNN and existing PDNN-based frameworks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Volumetric and selected axial-slice reconstruction results of the 3-D Fresnel experimental targets “Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018

Xudong Chen.Computational Methods for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering. Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Reza K. Amineh. Microwave nondestructive testing of nonmetallic pipes: An overview of the major developments.IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., 27(4):54–66, 2024. 16

work page 2024
[3]

Scattering-enhanced intensity based tomography.IEEE Trans

Yingying Qin, Ankit Butola, Yu Zhong, and Krishna Agarwal. Scattering-enhanced intensity based tomography.IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 12:1132–1140, 2026

work page 2026
[4]

Computational comparison and validation of point spread functions for optical microscopes.IEEE Trans

Zicheng Liu, Yingying Qin, Jean-Claude Tinguely, and Krishna Agarwal. Computational comparison and validation of point spread functions for optical microscopes.IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 11:170–178, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

L. Guo, A. Bialkowski, and A. Abbosh. Medical microwave imaging using physics-guided deep learning—part 2: The inverse solver.IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 45(5):2295–2305, 2026

work page 2026
[6]

Physics-constrained deep-learning-based full-waveform inversion: A practical source-independent strategy with two real data applications.IEEE Trans

Chao Song, Tariq Alkhalifah, Umair bin Waheed, Silin Wang, and Cai Liu. Physics-constrained deep-learning-based full-waveform inversion: A practical source-independent strategy with two real data applications.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 64:1–13, 2026

work page 2026
[7]

A fast physics-driven Fourier-spectral solver for highly nonlinear inverse scattering problems.IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag

Yutong Du, Zicheng Liu, Yi Huang, Bazargul Matkerim, Bo Qi, Yali Zong, and Peixian Han. A fast physics-driven Fourier-spectral solver for highly nonlinear inverse scattering problems.IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., 25(7):3013–3017, 2026

work page 2026
[8]

Habashy, Ross W

Tarek M. Habashy, Ross W. Groom, and Brian R. Spies. Beyond the Born and Rytov approximations: A nonlinear approach to electromagnetic scattering.J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 98(B2):1759–1775, 1993

1993

Show all 34 references

[9]

A. J. Devaney. A filtered backpropagation algorithm for diffraction tomography.Ultrason. Imaging, 4(4):336–350, 1982

1982
[10]

A. J. Devaney. Inverse-scattering theory within the Rytov approximation.Opt. Lett., 6(8):374–376, 1981

1981
[11]

Jin Choi

Sung Chan Jun and U. Jin Choi. Convergence analyses of the Born iterative method and the distorted Born iterative method.Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 20(3-4):301–316, 1999

1999
[12]

van den Berg and Ralph E

Peter M. van den Berg and Ralph E. Kleinman. A contrast source inversion method.Inverse Probl., 13(6):1607–1620, 1997

1997
[13]

Subspace-based optimization method for solving inverse-scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Xudong Chen. Subspace-based optimization method for solving inverse-scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 48(1):42–49, 2010

2010
[14]

Subspace-based optimization method for inverse scattering problems with an inho- mogeneous background medium.Inverse Probl., 26(7):074007, 2010

Xudong Chen. Subspace-based optimization method for inverse scattering problems with an inho- mogeneous background medium.Inverse Probl., 26(7):074007, 2010

2010
[15]

Subspace-based optimization method for inverse scattering problems utilizing phaseless data.IEEE Trans

Li Pan, Yu Zhong, Xudong Chen, and Swee Ping Yeo. Subspace-based optimization method for inverse scattering problems utilizing phaseless data.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 49(3):981– 987, 2011

2011
[16]

Torres-Verdin

Guozhong Gao and C. Torres-Verdin. High-order generalized extended Born approximation for electromagnetic scattering.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 54(4):1243–1256, 2006. 17

2006
[17]

Oristaglio

Tsili Wang and Michael L. Oristaglio. An inverse algorithm for velocity reconstruction.Inverse Probl., 14(5):1345–1351, 1998

1998
[18]

Deep-learning schemes for full-wave nonlinear inverse scattering prob- lems.IEEE Trans

Zhun Wei and Xudong Chen. Deep-learning schemes for full-wave nonlinear inverse scattering prob- lems.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 57(4):1849–1860, 2019

2019
[19]

Teixeira, Che Liu, Arye Nehorai, and Tie Jun Cui

Lianlin Li, Long Gang Wang, Fernando L. Teixeira, Che Liu, Arye Nehorai, and Tie Jun Cui. Deep- NIS: Deep neural network for nonlinear electromagnetic inverse scattering.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 67(3):1819–1825, 2019

2019
[20]

Physics-inspired convolutional neural network for solving full-wave inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Zhun Wei and Xudong Chen. Physics-inspired convolutional neural network for solving full-wave inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 67(9):6138–6148, 2019

2019
[21]

Prasad, and Krishna Agarwal

Zicheng Liu, Mayank Roy, Dilip K. Prasad, and Krishna Agarwal. Physics-guided loss functions improve deep learning performance in inverse scattering.IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 8:236–245, 2022

2022
[22]

SOM-Net: Unrolling the subspace-based optimization for solving full-wave inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Yu Liu, Hao Zhao, Rencheng Song, Xudong Chen, Chang Li, and Xun Chen. SOM-Net: Unrolling the subspace-based optimization for solving full-wave inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 60:1–15, 2022

2022
[23]

Neural Born iterative method for solving inverse scattering problems: 2D cases.IEEE Trans

Tao Shan, Zhichao Lin, Xiaoqian Song, Maokun Li, Fan Yang, and Shenheng Xu. Neural Born iterative method for solving inverse scattering problems: 2D cases.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 71(1):818–829, 2023

2023
[24]

Unrolled convolutional neural network for full-wave inverse scattering.IEEE Trans

Yarui Zhang, Marc Lambert, Aur´ elia Fraysse, and Dominique Lesselier. Unrolled convolutional neural network for full-wave inverse scattering.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 71(1):947–956, 2023

2023
[25]

Quality-factor- inspired deep neural network solver for solving inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Yutong Du, Zicheng Liu, Miao Cao, Zupeng Liang, Yali Zong, and Changyou Li. Quality-factor- inspired deep neural network solver for solving inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 63:1–13, 2025

2025
[26]

Physics-driven neural network for solving electromagnetic inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Yutong Du, Zicheng Liu, Bazargul Matkerim, Changyou Li, Yali Zong, Bo Qi, and Jingwei Kou. Physics-driven neural network for solving electromagnetic inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 74(2):1945–1956, 2026

1945
[27]

Im- proved physics-driven neural network for solving inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans

Yutong Du, Zicheng Liu, Bo Wu, Jingwei Kou, Hang Li, Changyou Li, Yali Zong, and Bo Qi. Im- proved physics-driven neural network for solving inverse scattering problems.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 74(7):6944–6953, 2026

2026
[28]

Schaubert, D

D. Schaubert, D. Wilton, and A. Glisson. A tetrahedral modeling method for electromagnetic scatter- ing by arbitrarily shaped inhomogeneous dielectric bodies.IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 32(1):77– 85, 1984. 18

1984
[29]

R. F. Harrington.Time-Harmonic Electromagnetic Fields. Wiley-IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2001

2001
[30]

IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2nd edition, 1994

Chen-To Tai.Dyadic Green Functions in Electromagnetic Theory. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2nd edition, 1994

1994
[31]

Contraction integral equation for three-dimensional electromagnetic inverse scattering problems.J

Yu Zhong and Kuiwen Xu. Contraction integral equation for three-dimensional electromagnetic inverse scattering problems.J. Imaging, 5(2), 2019. Art. no. 27

2019
[32]

Three-dimensional electromagnetic inverse scattering imaging via FBE-CIE model withL 2/3 regularization and alternating direction method of multipliers.Appl

Haixia Li, Benxin Zhang, Yufeng Liu, and Zhibin Zhu. Three-dimensional electromagnetic inverse scattering imaging via FBE-CIE model withL 2/3 regularization and alternating direction method of multipliers.Appl. Math. Model., 154:116666, 2026

2026
[33]

Free space experimental scattering database continuation: experimental set-up and measurement precision.Inverse Probl., 21(6):S117– S130, 2005

Jean-Michel Geffrin, Pierre Sabouroux, and Christelle Eyraud. Free space experimental scattering database continuation: experimental set-up and measurement precision.Inverse Probl., 21(6):S117– S130, 2005

2005
[34]

Continuing with the Fresnel database: experimental setup and improvements in 3D scattering measurements.Inverse Probl., 25(2):024001, 2009

Jean-Michel Geffrin and Pierre Sabouroux. Continuing with the Fresnel database: experimental setup and improvements in 3D scattering measurements.Inverse Probl., 25(2):024001, 2009. 19

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018

Xudong Chen.Computational Methods for Electromagnetic Inverse Scattering. Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Reza K. Amineh. Microwave nondestructive testing of nonmetallic pipes: An overview of the major developments.IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., 27(4):54–66, 2024. 16

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Scattering-enhanced intensity based tomography.IEEE Trans

Yingying Qin, Ankit Butola, Yu Zhong, and Krishna Agarwal. Scattering-enhanced intensity based tomography.IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 12:1132–1140, 2026

work page 2026

[4] [4]

Computational comparison and validation of point spread functions for optical microscopes.IEEE Trans

Zicheng Liu, Yingying Qin, Jean-Claude Tinguely, and Krishna Agarwal. Computational comparison and validation of point spread functions for optical microscopes.IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 11:170–178, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

L. Guo, A. Bialkowski, and A. Abbosh. Medical microwave imaging using physics-guided deep learning—part 2: The inverse solver.IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 45(5):2295–2305, 2026

work page 2026

[6] [6]

Physics-constrained deep-learning-based full-waveform inversion: A practical source-independent strategy with two real data applications.IEEE Trans

Chao Song, Tariq Alkhalifah, Umair bin Waheed, Silin Wang, and Cai Liu. Physics-constrained deep-learning-based full-waveform inversion: A practical source-independent strategy with two real data applications.IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 64:1–13, 2026

work page 2026

[7] [7]

A fast physics-driven Fourier-spectral solver for highly nonlinear inverse scattering problems.IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag

Yutong Du, Zicheng Liu, Yi Huang, Bazargul Matkerim, Bo Qi, Yali Zong, and Peixian Han. A fast physics-driven Fourier-spectral solver for highly nonlinear inverse scattering problems.IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., 25(7):3013–3017, 2026

work page 2026

[8] [8]

Habashy, Ross W

Tarek M. Habashy, Ross W. Groom, and Brian R. Spies. Beyond the Born and Rytov approximations: A nonlinear approach to electromagnetic scattering.J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 98(B2):1759–1775, 1993

1993