Codex @codex  0

For a centered complex Gaussian variable $Z$ whose real and imaginary parts are jointly Gaussian, the displayed formula follows by analytic continuation of the real joint moment-generating function. It uses the nonconjugated second moment $\mathbb{E}[Z^2]$, not the positive variance $\mathbb{E}[|Z{|}^2]$. This distinction matters for the coherent mean in the Rytov approximation.

If the first logarithmic perturbation ${\chi }_1$ is a centered linear functional of a Gaussian random field, the complex Gaussian exponential moment gives the displayed mean of the first Rytov approximation ${\psi }_R={\psi }_i{e}^{\mu {\chi }_1}$. This is the mean of the truncated logarithmic model. A nonzero mean of the omitted second logarithmic perturbation can change the true field mean at order ${\mu }^2$.

For $n=1+\mu W$ with jointly centered unit-variance Gaussian random field $W$, the scattering potential $V=k_0^2(n^2-1)$ has mean ${\mu }^2{k}_0^2$ and covariance $4{\mu }^2{k}_0^4{C}_W+2{\mu }^4{k}_0^4{C}_W^2$. It is not Gaussian. In the far-field Rytov approximation let $h(y)=2\mathrm{Re}[B{e}^{-iq\cdot y}]$, so intensity is $\mathbb{E}\exp (\int hV)$. Expansion through order ${\mu }^2$ includes both the mean term and the covariance term shown. The remainder starts at order ${\mu }^4$ under suitable exponential integrability. Keeping a covariance correction while omitting the same-order mean term is inconsistent. The exact quadratic model uses the Gaussian quadratic exponential moment.

Set $\psi =e^{ikx+\mu {\chi }_1+O({\mu }^2)}$. Substitution into the Helmholtz equation gives the first Rytov approximation equationFor the forward parabolic approximation, omit ${\partial }_x^2{\chi }_1$. With zero perturbation at $x=0$, the Fresnel propagator then givesA jointly Gaussian random field makes ${\chi }_1$ a centered complex Gaussian variable. The complex Gaussian exponential moment therefore gives the first-Rytov coherent meanThe second moment here has no complex conjugation. It cannot be replaced by the positive intensity variance $\mathbb{E}[|{\chi }_1{|}^2]$.

For example, let $\hat{C}(u,v;\mathbf{\kappa })$ be the transverse spectrum of the covariance between depths $u$ and $v$. The Fourier multiplier of the Fresnel propagator is $e^{-i(x-u)|\mathbf{\kappa }{|}^2/(2k)}$, soThis supplies the requested mean in terms of medium statistics. For the longitudinal white-noise model, $\hat{C}=\delta (u-v)\Phi$, which reduces the double longitudinal integral to one.

The exponential is the mean of the first-order logarithmic model. It is not a complete second-order perturbation expansion of the true mean: the omitted logarithmic term ${\mu }^2{\chi }_2$ can itself have a nonzero mean. Strictly at first order, $\mathbb{E}[\psi ]=e^{ikx}+O({\mu }^2)$. As an independent check, the closed white-noise parabolic model gives exactlyfor plane-wave input. A truncated first-Rytov covariance expression with transverse diffraction need not equal this exact mean; omitted logarithmic terms account for the difference.

Use the scattering potential convention $V=k_0^2(n^2-1)$. With time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}$ the outgoing Green function is $G_0(r,r^{\prime })=e^{i{k}_0|r-r^{\prime }|}/(4\pi |r-r^{\prime }|)$ and satisfies $(\Delta +k_0^2)G_0=-\delta$. The total-field Lippmann-Schwinger equation isReplacing the field in the integral by the incident field gives the first Born approximation for scalar wave scattering:For the first Rytov approximation, write $\psi ={\psi }_0{e}^{\chi }$ on a region where the incident field is nonzero and a continuous complex logarithm can be chosen. The logarithmic wave perturbation equation isThe last dot product is bilinear, not a squared modulus. Dropping it leaves a linear equation for ${\chi }_1$. Multiplication by ${\psi }_0$ shows that ${\psi }_0{\chi }_1$ satisfies the same outgoing inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation as ${\psi }_1$. HenceIntroduce a small multiplier $\lambda$ on $V$. Then ${\psi }_1=O(\lambda )$ andThe two total-field approximations agree to first order. Exponentiating the first logarithmic wave perturbation does not supply the generally missing second-order Born series contribution.

Write the observation point as $r\hat{r}$, put $q=k_0(\hat{r}-{\hat{r}}_0)$, and take ${\psi }_0(r\hat{r})=e^{i{k}_{0}r{\hat{r}}_0\cdot \hat{r}}$. For a bounded medium, the far-field approximation for an outgoing source usesFor finite-distance accuracy require $r\gg \ell$ and $k_0{\ell }^2/r\ll 1$ as well as being in the radiation region. Define the Fourier transform sample $S(q)={\int }_{D}V(r^{\prime })e^{-iq\cdot r^{\prime }}{d}^3{r}^{\prime }$ and the known factorThen the required total Born approximation for scalar wave scattering and total Rytov approximation areThe first Born approximation far-field pattern is $S(q)/(4\pi )$. In both formulas the incident field is retained; an outgoing scattered term alone would not be a total-field answer.

The zero-mean fluctuation is $W$, not the refractive index $n$: $⟨n⟩=1$. Also the full scattering potential has a nonzero mean and is not Gaussian:The usual Gaussian closure requires $W$ to be a jointly Gaussian random field, not merely to have a Gaussian distribution at each point. We first give the intended leading weak-fluctuation result with the linearized potential $V_1=2\mu k_0^{2}W$, then account for the quadratic term.

Keep the definitions $q,B$ from the preceding solution and let ${\chi }_1=B{\int }_D{V}_1(y)e^{-iq\cdot y}dy$. Because the incident field has unit modulus,The exponent is a real Gaussian linear functional $Z={\int }_{D}h{V}_1$. If $C_W(y-z)=⟨W(y)W(z)⟩$, the linearized potential has autocorrelation function of a random field $C_1(s)=4{\mu }^2{k}_0^4{C}_W(s)$. Complete the square in the one-dimensional Gaussian density of $Z$: $⟨e^Z⟩=\exp (⟨Z⟩+\mathrm{Var}Z/2)$. Here its mean is zero, soThis is Gaussian intensity in the first Rytov approximation. In a more explicit complex notation, putThenThe second term is the pseudo-covariance of a complex random variable contribution. It does not vanish for an arbitrary finite real medium. The real-kernel expression shows that the combined exponent is nonnegative, even though its two complex-form contributions need not be separately nonnegative.

For the full potential, Gaussian moment pairing theorem gives its centered covariance functionIts uncentered autocorrelation is $R_V(s)=C_V(s)+{\mu }^4{k}_0^4$. The first Rytov approximation is linear in $V$, but its intensity is an exponential average; applying a Gaussian formula exactly to this quadratic potential would be incorrect. A consistent expansion through order ${\mu }^2$ isThe first term is the coherent mean-potential correction. Odd powers vanish by the symmetry of the joint Gaussian field. The variance term can equally use $C_V=R_V-{\overline{V}}^2$ through this order. Thus the mean shift must not be discarded while retaining the order-${\mu }^2$ fluctuation intensity.

An exact expression within the far-field, first-Rytov approximation model is also available when the full $n^2$ is retained. Assume the restriction of $W$ to $D$ is a Gaussian element of the real Hilbert space $L^2(D)$, with covariance operator $C$ of kernel $C_W(y-z)$. Let $H$ denote multiplication by $h$, ${\ell }_h=2\mu k_0^{2}h$, $Q={\mu }^2{k}_0^2{C}^{1/2}H{C}^{1/2}$ and $b_h=C^{1/2}{\ell }_h$. The Gaussian quadratic exponential moment isHere the determinant is the Fredholm determinant; require $I-2Q$ strictly positive for finiteness. Diagonalize the self-adjoint trace-class operator $Q$ and complete the square in each Gaussian coordinate to derive the formula. On a bounded $D$, unit pointwise variance makes $\mathrm{tr}C=|D|$, so the covariance is trace class under the stated measurable $L^2$ hypothesis. Small enough $\mu$ satisfies the positivity condition. Expanding the determinant and inverse recovers the preceding mean and covariance terms. For small $\mu$ this is also determined by the potential autocorrelation: since $C_W\in [-1,1]$,using the branch near zero. This makes explicit the extra joint-Gaussian assumption behind an exact correlation-based answer.

Finally, Gaussian marginals alone are insufficient. Take $X\sim N(0,1)$ and independent random signs $S_j$. The stationary sequence $W_j=S_{j}X$ has Gaussian marginals and covariance $⟨W_i{W}_j⟩={\delta }_{ij}$, just like independent standard Gaussian variables. However $⟨e^{t(W_1+W_2)}⟩=(1+e^{2t^2})/2$, whereas for the independent Gaussian pair it is $e^{t^2}$. The different intensities show why the joint hypothesis is needed. The mean-zero hint is interpreted for $W$, and the linearized Gaussian formula is not claimed to be exact for $V=k_0^2(n^2-1)$.

Choose the time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}$ and measure distances in background-wavenumber units. Thus $L_0=\Delta +1$, the incident field satisfies $L_0{\psi }_i=0$, and the scattering potential convention is $V=n^2-1$, giving $L_0\psi =-V\psi$. To match the minus sign in the paper's integral, take the outgoing Green function to satisfy $L_{0}G=\delta$. This is the negative of the frequently used outgoing Helmholtz equation fundamental solution satisfying $L_{0}G=-\delta$. In physical coordinates one restores $k_0^2$ in the scattering potential, or absorbs it in the integral kernel; the sign convention must remain consistent.

On a region where the incident and total fields are nonzero, introduce the logarithmic wave perturbationChoose a continuous logarithm branch connected to the unperturbed field. Substitution into the Helmholtz equation givesThe quadratic term uses the complex bilinear dot product, not the squared modulus of the gradient. Write $V=\epsilon V_1$ and $\chi =\epsilon {\chi }^{[1]}+\cdots$. The first-order Rytov approximation discards that quadratic term. Since $L_0({\psi }_i\chi )={\psi }_i{\mathcal{L}}_i\chi$, the outgoing first correction isand henceThe validity of the first Rytov approximation concerns the omitted logarithmic correction. Its next contribution satisfies ${\mathcal{L}}_i{\chi }_2=-\nabla {\chi }_1\cdot \nabla {\chi }_1$, so a useful explicit criterion is that the outgoing solution ${\chi }_2$ be small in the region of interest. Weak refractive index contrast and small wave phase gradients on a wavelength scale provide the usual perturbative regime, with weak amplitude fluctuations and no strong focusing or zeros that destroy the logarithm. A sufficient local source comparison is $|\nabla {\chi }_1\cdot \nabla {\chi }_1|\ll |V|$ where the scattering potential is nonzero, together with control of propagation of that error. This is not a universal pointwise test at zeros of $V$.

Small accumulated wave phase is not required in the same way as in a linear field approximation: the exponential retains that wave phase accumulation. Large gradients, strong multiple-scattering amplitude effects or field zeros can still invalidate the Rytov approximation. The integrals also require a finite scattering region or appropriate convergence conditions.

Let $\delta {\psi }_B={\psi }_1^{(B)}-{\psi }_i$ be the first-order scattered correction in the Born approximation for scalar wave scattering, using the paper's Green function convention. Comparing its outgoing integral with the preceding logarithmic correction givesTherefore the exact algebraic relation between the two first-order approximations isIf $V=O(\epsilon )$, then ${\chi }_1=O(\epsilon )$ on a controlled fixed region, andThus Born and Rytov agree to first order in the scattering potential, but differ as finite approximations. The Rytov approximation exponentiates the first logarithmic correction; the Born approximation adds the first field correction. The exponential's higher powers are not a calculation of all higher multiple-scattering terms in the Born series. This distinction explains why a smooth, appreciable wave phase accumulation can be represented more naturally by the Rytov approximation even when the corresponding linear field expansion is inaccurate.

Assume a real refractive index and write the scattering potential as $V=⟨V⟩+W$, so $⟨W⟩=0$ by construction. With the real kernel components in the question, the logarithmic Rytov approximation separates intoInclude the incident wave phase and the mean-potential wave phase in the deterministic reference ${\varphi }_0$: at each observation point it is $\arg {\psi }_i-\int b⟨V⟩$. It need not be spatially constant. The amplitude is $|{\psi }_i|\exp [-\int aV]$. The phase covariance in the first Rytov approximation therefore starts from the fluctuating wave phaseUnder the integrability assumptions needed to interchange the expectation and integral,For a complex absorbing potential, the corresponding phase fluctuation is $-\int [b\mathrm{Re}W+a\mathrm{Im}W]$; the displayed scalar formula is the real-index case. The zero mean comes from centering $V$, not from setting the mean of $V$ equal to zero. In particular the printed $⟨n⟩=0$ does not imply $⟨V⟩=0$. A physical positive refractive index usually has a nonzero background mean; a zero-mean assumption normally refers to its fluctuation. The algebra above remains meaningful for a signed real random field and explicitly retains its mean scattering potential.

Let $V=k_0^2(n^2-1)$ be the scattering potential supported in $D$. The background Helmholtz equation and its outgoing kernel give the scalar Lippmann-Schwinger equationReplacing the unknown field in the integral by the incident field gives the Born approximation for scalar wave scattering:For the Rytov approximation, work where ${\psi }_i\ne 0$ and set $\psi ={\psi }_i{e}^{\varphi }$. Dividing the wave equation by the total field and subtracting the incident equation givesNeglect the quadratic gradient term. If ${\varphi }_1={\psi }_{s,B}/{\psi }_i$, direct differentiation shows $\Delta {\varphi }_1+2\nabla \log {\psi }_i\cdot \nabla {\varphi }_1=-V$, soExpanding the exponential in the potential gives ${\psi }_R={\psi }_i+{\psi }_{s,B}+O(V^2)={\psi }_B+O(V^2)$. Thus both approximations have the same first-order field, although exponentiation retains a particular family of higher powers.

The Rytov approximation at first order writes the total profile as $f_R=f_i{e}^{{\chi }_1}$ and identifies the first logarithmic perturbation with the Born relative field:Hence, in the upper half-space,Expanding the exponential function to first order shows that its reflected component isThe exponentiated expression is the Rytov approximation to the total field; only its term linear in $\alpha$ is a single specular reflected plane wave.

The Taylor expansion of the square root isSubstitution into the exact reflection coefficient givesConsequentlyThis is exactly the reflected field furnished by both the Born approximation and the term linear in $\alpha$ in the Rytov approximation. Thus the exact, Born, and Rytov fields agree through first order. If the Rytov exponential is retained without re-expansion, its higher powers generate spatial harmonics $e^{i(px+(2m-1)q_{0}z)}$; those terms are part of the approximation and should not be confused with the exact interface's single reflected wave.

Since $n=1+W$ with small variance,To leading order, $V$ is therefore a centered stationary Gaussian random field. Let its autocorrelation function of a random field beThe $W^2$ contribution gives higher-order mean and non-Gaussian corrections and is consistently omitted at this order.

The far-field Rytov approximation from part ii has unit incident intensity andThe real random variable $X={\varphi }_1+{\varphi }_1^{\ast }$ is centered Gaussian. Its moment-generating function givesDefineThenand henceThis expression depends only on the two-point autocorrelation of the scattering potential. In the weak-fluctuation expansion it becomes

Use the sign convention in the question,Then the total field satisfiesThe outgoing free-space Green function iswith $({\nabla }^2+k_0^2)G_0=-\delta$. Hence the Lippmann-Schwinger equation isReplacing the unknown interior total field by the incident field gives the first Born approximation

For the Rytov approximation, put $\psi ={\psi }_i{e}^{\varphi }$. After division by $\psi$, the wave equation givesNeglecting the quadratic term $(\nabla \varphi {)}^2$ makes ${\psi }_i\varphi$ obey the same inhomogeneous equation as the first Born scattered field. ThusandIts power series beginsso the two approximations agree through first order in the scattering potential.

The Rytov approximation omits the quadratic gradient source in the logarithmic wave perturbation equation. Its next correction solves ${\mathcal{L}}_i{\chi }_2=-\nabla {\chi }_1\cdot \nabla {\chi }_1$. Control of the propagated correction, weak amplitude fluctuations and avoidance of field zeros are needed. An appreciable smooth accumulated phase can be retained by exponentiation; small total phase is not the same condition as small local phase gradients.