CRAMER-RAO STUDY OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCATTERING SYSTEMS:
PART I: FORMULATION
Edwin A. Marengo, Maytee Zambrano-Nuñez, and David Brady
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
email: emarengo@ece.neu.edu
ABSTRACT
A Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) study is developed in one-
dimensional (1D) space which sheds fundamental insight
onto the information about multiply scattering point-like
scatterers that is contained in scattering field data corre-
sponding to transmissive, reflective, and combined trans-
missive plus reflective sensing geometries, and single- and
multi-frequency measurements.
KEY WORDS
Cramer-Rao bound, scattering, estimation, inverse prob-
lem, one-dimensional, Fisher information.
1 Introduction
This two-part paper is concerned with the estimation-
theoretic quantification of the “information content” about
a wave scatterer that is contained in scattered field data.
The information content of scattered fields has been inves-
tigated before by, e.g., Brancaccio et al. [1] and Pierri et al.
[2] (see also the references therein), which emphasize the
question of the number of degrees of freedom (NDF) of the
linear mapping from the scattering potential function to the
scattering of the data or “essential dimensionality” of the
Born-approximated matrix. Our presentation uses a differ-
ent approach based on the fundamental Cramer-Rao bound
(CRB) [3], and addresses both Born-approximable condi-
tions and the more general multiple scattering case, focus-
ing on canonical systems of multiply-scattering point-like
scatterers.
In particular, we quantify information about point-
like scatterers that is contained in scattering data, for
different sensing configurations and single- versus multi-
frequency conditions, via the CRB benchmark, which mea-
sures under mild statistical conditions the lowest achiev-
able error in the unbiased estimation from noisy scattering
data of sought-after scattering parameters (in the present
context, the scattering strengths and positions of point-like
scatterers).
To facilitate analytical and computational handling
of a variety of interesting questions, we choose to focus
only on the formally simple case of scatterers or inhomo-
geneities in one-dimensional (1D) space. This particular
scenario simulates, e.g., a transmission line environment
where the small scatterer can represent a local inhomogene-
ity or iris, or a canonical monostatic or bistatic radar or lidar
model with “in-line-of-sight” target. In the latter context
this model is suitable for (transversely) large, (longitudi-
nally) thin planar targets that exhibit negligible variation
of constitutive properties in the transverse coordinates and
non-negligible variation mostly in the direction of propa-
gation of the probing fields, as applicable to far-field trans-
missive or reflective tomographic measurements. The 1D
geometry is also relevant to the forward and inverse scatter-
ing problem for planar layered structures, which has been
the focus of a CRB study by Gustafsson and Nordebo [4]
whose connections to the present work are outlined in the
following.
The use of Cramer-Rao analysis as a tool to assess
imaging systems is not new. It has been a topic of important
investigations in the past 40 years. Of much interest is the
work by Shahram and Milanfar [5] who focused on the rig-
orous information-theoretic determination of the resolution
of incoherent optical imaging systems by formulating a de-
tection problem consisting of identifying single-source ver-
sus two-source systems and who also studied the CRB in
the estimation of source parameters. However, unlike this
seminal work, which focuses on an incoherent radiation
system involving a linear signal model, we address a coher-
ent scattering system where the signal model is nonlinear.
Of greater relevance to the present investigation are a num-
ber of more recent papers by Shi and Nehorai [6], Sentenac
et al. [7], and Simonetti et al. [8]. Shi and Nehorai [6] de-
veloped a Cramer-Rao analysis of multiply-scattering point
targets in three-dimensional (3D) space and showed via ex-
haustive numerical computation several interesting effects
such as the possibility of adding artificial scatterers to en-
hance estimation of parameters associated to sought-after
scatterers. The role of scatterers to enhance imaging has
also been studied in [9], and this issue is, in fact, part of
the broader area of radiation and imaging enhancements
via substrate media including metamaterials [10]. Refer-
ence [6] also illustrated further the enhancement in imaging
thanks to multiple scattering as a physical resource. The
latter topic has also been studied in Sentenac et al. [7] and
Simonetti et al. [8] via the CRB benchmark.
In particular, recently there has been much interest
in addressing the resolution limits in imaging when mul-
tiple scattering is significant. This has been investigated
in [6, 7, 8] in connection with the forward point of view,
where comparison is made between two different physical
scattering models, one where multiple scattering is negligi-
ble (Born approximation), applicable to weakly scattering
objects describable by the Born approximation, versus the
more general one where multiple scattering is significant
and cannot be neglected. This has been investigated also
in connection with the companion inverse point of view
or imaging from given data, where one compares algo-
rithms valid only in the Born approximation versus more
general methods applicable in the exact scattering frame-
work [8, 11, 12]. It has been shown that so-called funda-
mental “resolution limits” in imaging such as the Rayleigh
resolution limit hold only in the Born or linearizing ap-
proximation regime, and that they do not generally hold
under active inverse-scattering-based imaging if significant
multiple scattering is involved. Enhancement of resolution
via multiple scattering is possible. However, clearly the
enhancement may depend on the particular remote sens-
ing configuration and particular scattering parameters, and,
in fact, multiple scattering can either enhance or diminish
resolution [7]. Both possibilities are demonstrated in the
present study.
It is important to emphasize that the real physical
model is, of course, the multiple scattering one. The Born
approximation is valid for weakly scattering objects only.
However, in comparing the two models one gains insight
into the possible gain in resolution due to multiple scatter-
ing. Clearly if there are scattering configurations for which
the Born approximation model outperforms the multiple
scattering one, this is clearly a fictitious and non-physically
important result, since in the same physical situation only
the multiple scattering model is exact. Thus for fixed scat-
tering parameters, if it is found that the Born approxima-
tion outperforms the multiple scattering model, this means
that in reality the Born-approximation resolution limit actu-
ally is too optimistic for those particular scattering parame-
ters, while if on the contrary the multiple scattering model
is better, then this means that the diffraction limit associ-
ated with the Born approximation is in fact too pessimistic
and that better resolution (super-resolution) is possible.
Thus in the present contribution we re-visit the use
of CRB in imaging systems to further examine the role of
multiple scattering in subwavelength imaging. But besides
this issue, we are also interested in taking advantage of
the derived CRB framework to address other open ques-
tions. One is the role of different measurement configu-
rations for scatterer information extraction. They reduce
to 3 canonical arrangements: reflective (R) system (like a
monostatic radar or lidar system), transmissive (T) system
(like a bistatic radar or lidar system), and combined trans-
missive and reflective setups (like a more general multi-
static system). The aspect of sensing configuration is also
treated by Gustafsson and Nordebo [4] who employed the
CRB as a way to assess the ill-posedness of the electro-
magnetic inverse scattering problem for nonmagnetic mul-
tilayer media, in terms of resolution, as measured by the
length of the grid cells adopted in inversions, versus estima-
tion accuracy, associated to the inversion of the sought-after
constitutive property (permittivity) at each cell. The study
considered time-domain reflective (R) and transmissive (T)
data. Some of our results complement the pioneering work
in [4]. For example, among other results, it was found that
transmissive data give a rank-1 Fisher information matrix,
a result that is also obtained in the present paper. But we
also consider complementary aspects not addressed in [4],
such as the Born approximation versus multiple scattering
comparison, more sensing configurations (in particular, be-
sides R, T, and the one-sided reflective and transmissive
data (RT), we also explore two-sided reflective data plus
single-sided transmissive data (RRT), and two-sided reflec-
tive and transmissive data (RRTT)), as well as the role of
a priori information on the scatterer strengths or scatterer
positions.
The remainder of this two-part paper is organized as
follows. In the present, part I paper, we focus on the theo-
retical formulation, and in the following, part II paper we
focus on the computer simulation aspects and the interpre-
tation of the results. Section 2 of this first paper develops
the forward scattering analysis in 1D space. As is custom-
arily done in imaging resolution studies, we focus on the
particular case of two point-like scatterers whose scattering
parameters (scattering strengths, positions, scatterers sepa-
ration, etc.) one wishes to estimate from scattering data.
Section 3 presents, for two point scatterers, and for single-
and multi-frequency cases, the CRB calculations for differ-
ent scattering parameters of interest.
2 Scattering Formulation
Consider in 1D free space, primary scalar sources (ρ) and
scalar fields (incident fields) (ψ i ) related by the scalar
Helmholtz equation
 2 
∂ 2
+k ψi (x) = ρ(x) (1)
∂x2
so that the incident fields

ψi (x) = G0 (x, x )ρ(x )dx (2)
where the free space Green function (see [13], p. 912)
i
G0 (x, x ) = − exp(ik|x − x |). (3)
2k
It obeys
 
∂2 2
+ k G0 (x, x ) = δ(x − x ) (4)
∂x2
and outgoing wave conditions at infinity. In these results,
k = ω/c is the wavenumber of the field at angular oscilla-
tion frequency ω where c is the free space speed of light.
 For more general media, the differential equation re-
lating sources ρ and (total) fields ψ t is
 2  more general multi-frequency case:
∂ 2
+ k ψt (x) = V (x)ψt (x) + ρ(x) (5)
∂x2
where the scattering potential V = κ 2 (x) − k 2 where κ(x)
is the space-dependent wavenumber of the field in the (to-
tal) medium.
For the particular case of point-like scatterers of in-
dividual strengths or reflectivities τ m , m = 1, 2, ..., M ,
and positions X m , m = 1, 2, ..., M , we have V (x) =
M
m=1 τm δ(x − Xm ). If scattering is elastic (non-
dissipative), then τm must obey the condition derived in
Appendix A. This condition will be used in selecting val-
ues for the computer study; however, we do not require it in
the CRB calculations which hold for arbitrary τ m . The to-
tal Green function G in the medium including the scatterers
obeys

M
G(x,x ) − G0 (x,x ) = G0 (x,Xm )τm G(Xm ,x )
m=1

M
= G(x,Xm )τm G0(Xm ,x ),
m=1
(6)
a result to be used later, with emphasis on the particular
two-scatterer case. In the remainder of the paper it will
be assumed that the scatterers are in the region (0, D),
and that scattering experiments are done involving point
sources and receivers at x ≤ 0 and/or x ≥ D. The particu-
lar case studies of interest are detailed next.
2.1 Case Studies
For the purposes of our analysis, it will suffice without
loss of generality to assume the following scattering ex-
periments (refer to figure 1):
• “Reflective −, −”: a point source at x = 0 (ρ(x) =
δ(x − XT )) and a point-receiver also at x = 0. The mea-
sured scattered field for this experiment will be denoted
K(−, −). This is a particular entry in the scattering ma-
trix K.
• “Reflective +, +”: a point source at x = D and a point-
receiver also at x = D. The entry in the scattering ma-
trix K associated to this experiment will be denoted as
K(+, +).
• “Transmissive +, −”: a point source at x = 0 and a point-
receiver at x = D. Due to reciprocity this experiment has
the same signal content as the reciprocal counterpart in-
volving x = D as source point and x = 0 as receiver point.
The entries in the scattering matrix K of these experiments
will be denoted as K(+, −) and K(−, +). These entries
are, apart from noise, identical. However, in the presence
of noise there can be additional information in taking the
complementary entry (larger SNR thanks to more samples).
In our Cramer-Rao analysis we shall consider five dif-
ferent groupings of these data, for single frequency and the
• Case R: Reflective −, −.
• Case T: Transmissive +, −.
• Case RT: Reflective −, −, and transmissive +, −.
• Case RRT: Reflective −, −, reflective +, +, and trans-
missive +, −.
• Case RRTT: Reflective −, −, reflective +, +, transmis-
sive +, −, and transmissive −, +.
2.2 The Forward Scattering Map in the Born Approx-
imation
The scattered field (total minus incident field) for the above
experiments is defined by G − G 0 , which according to
Eq.(6) gives: 
• K(−, −) = G(0,0)−G0(0,0) = dxG0(0,x)V (x)G(x,0) for
the case “reflective −, −”. 
• K(+,+)=G(D,D)− G0(D,D)= dxG0(D,x)V (x)G(x,D)
for the case “reflective +, +”.
• K(+,−)=G(D,0)− G0(D,0)= dx G0(D,x)V (x)G(x,0) =
K(−,+) for the cases “transmissive +, −” or the reciprocal
equivalent, case “transmissive −, +”.
Let us emphasize next the particular case of two
point-like scatterers of individual strengths or reflectivi-
ties τ1 and τ2 and positions X 1 and X2 , so that V (x) =
τ1 δ(x −X1)+τ2 δ(x −X2).
In the Born approximation for which G  G 0 we then
obtain from (3,6)
 2
KB (−,−) = −
i
exp(i2kX1) [τ1 +τ2 exp(i2kd)] (7)
2k
where the target separation d = |X1 −X2 |.
We also obtain
 2
i
KB (+,+)= − exp[i2k(D−X1 −d)][τ2+τ1 exp(i2kd)]
2k
(8)
We also obtain
 2
i
KB (+,−) = − exp(i2kD)(τ1 +τ2) = KB (−,+) (9)
2k
which completes the picture of scattering by two point-like
scatterers within the Born approximation. Let us consider
next the more general multiple scattering case.
2.3 The Forward Scattering Map Including Multiple
Scattering
The more general case of multiply scattering point targets
can be readily handled by carefully following the succes-
sive multiple scattering events as is done, e.g., in [14],
p. 220-223 (see, in particular, equations 5.67-d, 5.68 in
[14]). (Remark: However, care must be exercised in not-
ing that the electromagnetic discussion in [14] applies to a
slightly different physical situation, in particular, one of a
three-layered medium, unlike the present medium formed
by free space as background and two point-like scatterers
or reflectivities embedded to that background. Thus the re-
sults in [14] reduce to our results after certain substitutions:
in our case, scattering by the point-like inhomogeneities is
isotropic, hence the reflectivity by coming from the right is
the same as by coming from the left, unlike in the layered
medium where the reflectivity varies in sign when applied
to the opposite direction of travel. But besides this issue,
the results in [14] and the present results outlined below are
equivalent.)
One obtains the multiple scattering generalization of
(7)
   fact, in our computer simulations we will from the onset
i (1+ τ̂1)2τ̂2 exp(i2kd)
K(−, −)= − exp(i2kX1) τ̂1+ (10)
2k 1− τ̂1τ̂2 exp(i2kd)
where we have introduced for notational compactness
 
i
τ̂m = − τm m = 1, 2. (11)
2k
Similarly, the multiple scattering generalization of (8) is
found to be
   tering), under different configurations (data sets R, T, RT,
i (1+ τ̂2)2τ̂1 exp(i2kd)
K(+,+)= − exp[i2k(D−X1−d)] τ̂2+
2k 1− τ̂1τ̂2 exp(i2kd)
(12)
Finally, the multiple scattering generalization of (9) is
  
i (1+ τ̂1)(1+ τ̂2)
K(+,−) = − exp(i2kD) −1 =K(−,+)
2k 1− τ̂1τ̂2 exp(i2kd)
(13)
2.4 Born Versus Multiple Scattering Cases
Some differences become obvious in terms of the informa-
tion available in the multiple scattering case, due to greater
contrast giving rise to multiple scattering, versus in the
Born approximation case for weakly scattering targets. For
example, we see that while the Born approximation scat-
tering matrix entry K B (+, −) in (9) has no dependence on
the target separation d, the multiple scattering counterpart
(13) does exhibit such a dependence. Thus in the Born ap-
proximation the transmissive experiment giving K B (+, −)
provides no information about the target separation, but in-
stead gives us only (apart from a constant) the sum of the
(ξ) = K̄ + W
two target strengths (corresponding to low-frequency in-
formation about the scattering potential as a whole). In
contrast, in the more general multiply scattering case the
same transmissive experiment does provide such informa-
tion thanks to multiple scattering events between the two
scatterers.
We also note, however, that the dependence on d
is of the form exp(i2kd) which implies that d and d +
nλ/2, n = 1, 2, ... (where λ = 2π/k) exhibit the same
value of K(+, −) so that even in the multiple scattering
case we are limited in our resolution ability under a sin-
gle frequency experiment (we cannot distinguish between
distances separated by half wavelength). (Remark: This
problem does not hold in the 2D or 3D case since then
there is wave amplitude attenuation in propagation, which
is not present in the 1D case). However, this is an aliasing
issue, and it does not mean that we cannot estimate sub-
wavelength scatterer separations. As we will show next, we
can, in the multiple scattering signal model. But, subject to
the ambiguity whether the estimated distance is, say, d, or
d + nλ/2, n = 1, 2, .... It is in the latter interpretation that
we will speak in the following about subwavelength imag-
ing resolution (with the clear understanding that we are re-
ferring to estimation of the “principal value” of d only). In
restrict attention to d ∈ (0, λ/2).
Our next goal is to quantify and better understand the
information content for a two-scatterer system character-
ized by scattering strengths τ 1 and τ2 , and scatterer position
X1 and target separation d, from different scattering data
sets. This will be done via the fundamental Cramer-Rao
bound pertinent to the variance (error) of unbiased estima-
tors for the scattering parameters τ 1 , τ2 , d and X1 , under
the two signal models above (Born versus multiple scat-
RRT, RRTT), and for single versus multi-frequency data.
3 Cramer-Rao Study of Two-Point-Scatterer
Systems
The Cramer-Rao study is developed directly in the multi-
frequency case under the assumption that the scattering
strengths are frequency-independent (nondispersive me-
dia) for the frequency bands used in the interrogation ex-
periments, thus in the multi-frequency case we consider
τm (ω) = τm , m = 1, 2. The latter assumption simplifies
the analysis and applies to many practical situations. For
the more general case of dispersive scatterers, see [4]. The
single-frequency case is discussed as an important special
case.
3.1 Signal Model and Parameters
In practice, one collects noisy data which we take into ac-
count via the signal model:
K (14)
where K̄ is the noise-free data vector formed by the avail-
able entries of the response matrix K, which depend on the
remote sensing configuration (R, T, RT, etc.), K(ξ) is the
noisy realization of that matrix, W is white Gaussian noise
with variance σ02 (which is handled next as nuisance pa-
rameter that needs to be estimated from the data), and ξ is
the vector of the scattering plus noise parameters that ones
wishes to estimate from the data. We consider in this paper
different vectors ξ corresponding to different combinations
of the following parameters: The position X 1 of target 1,
the target separation d, the real and imaginary parts τ (r)m
= σ0 I where I de-
and τ(i)m of target strength τ m , m = 1, 2, and the unknown
noise variance σ02 . Thus we consider the case of no a priori
which we will denote next as
knowledge, where the parameter vector
where H denotes the conjugate transpose, and where the
2
covariance matrix [3, pp. 501] C K
notes the identity matrix, whose size is determined by the
length of the data vector K
L. Clearly L is equal to Nf for cases R and T, to 2N f for
 T case RT, to 3Nf for case RRT, and to 4N f for case RRTT.
ξ = X1 , d, τ(r)1 , τ(r)2 , τ(i)1 , τ(i)2 , σ02 (15) The CRB (CRB[ξ(i)]) is the lower bound for the variance
var[ξ(i)] of any unbiased estimator for the parameter ξ(i),
as well as the special cases where τ1 , τ2 are known (mod-
and is defined in terms of the Fisher information matrix
eling a priori knowledge of the scatterer’s materials), so
I(ξ) by [3, eq.3.20]
that  T
ξ = X1 , d, σ02 (16) var[ξ(i)] ≥ [I −1 (ξ)]i,i = CRB[ξ(i)]. (19)
and where the positions X 1 , X2 (and thus also d) are known
Under the parameter vector ξ in (15) which is of
(modeling a priori knowledge of the support of the scatter-
length 7, the Fisher information matrix associated to the
ers), so that
signal model Eq.(14) reduces to
ξ = [τ(r)1 , τ(r)2 , τ(i)1 , τ(i)2 , σ02 ]T . (17) 

L 2 ∂K
H (ξ) ∂ K
(ξ)
In the following we shall refer to the cases in (16) and (17) I(ξ) = δi,j δi,7 + 2 
σ04 σ0 ∂ξi ∂ξj
as “known material” and “known support”, respectively. ⎡ H ⎤

∂K

H ∂ K

The three cases in (15, 16, 17) are studied next for both ∂X1 ∂X1 . . . ∂τ(i)2 ∂X1 0
∂K ∂K

single- and multi-frequency problems.  ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥

2 ⎢ .. ⎥
Consider first the single-frequency case. Then for the
L ⎢ . . . .⎥
= δi,j δi,7 + 2⎢ ⎥(20)
different remote sensing cases, the noise-free data vector σ04 σ0 ⎢∂ K

H


H

.. ⎥
⎣ ∂X ∂τ . . . ∂τ ∂τ . ⎦
∂ K ∂ K ∂ K
K̄ is as follows (with T denoting transpose): 1 (i)2 (i)2 (i)2
0 ... ... 0
• Case R: K̄ = [K(−, −)]
This holds for both Born and multiple scattering cases. The
• Case T: K̄ = [K(+, −)] results for the parameter vectors ξ in (16) and (17) are of
the same general form, and are constructed by suitable re-
• Case RT: K̄ = [K(−, −)K(+, −)]T duction of the Fisher information matrix above, thus, for
• Case RRT: K̄ = [K(−, −)K(+, −) K(+, +)]T example, for the ξ vector in (16) (“known material” case)
one obtains
• Case RRTT: K̄ = [K(−, −)K(+, −)K(−, +)K(+, +)]T ⎡ H ⎤
 ∂K
∂K
∂K

H ∂ K
0
2 ⎢ ∂X1H ∂X1

0⎥
L ∂d ∂X1
If data are gathered for a number N f of frequencies I(ξ) =
∂K
δi,j δi,3 + 2⎣ ∂ K
∂K
H ∂ K ⎦ (21)
4
ω1 , ..., ωNf , then in place of the scalar K(−, −) we have σ0 σ0 ∂X1 ∂d ∂d ∂d
0 0 0
the vector [K(−, −; ω 1) ... K(−, −; ωNf )]T , and so on.
Then the noise-free data vector for each case is as follows: Let us highlight salient aspects of each case (R, T,
RT, etc., and Born versus multiple scattering) separately.
• Case R: K̄ = K̄−,−,N
T
≡ [K(−, −; ω1 ) ... K(−, −; ωNf ]T
f
Rather than providing the analytical expressions for the
• Case T: K̄ = K̄+,−,N
T
≡ [K(+, −; ω1) ...K(+, −; ωNf ]T Fisher information matrix for each case, which would ac-
f
count for a lengthy discussion, we limit to highlighting the
• Case RT: K̄ = [K−,−,Nf K+,−,Nf ]T general structure and rank of this matrix for each case. Ta-
bles of the rank of the Fisher information matrix for repre-
• Case RRT: K̄ = [K−,−,Nf K+,−,Nf K+,+,Nf ]T (where sentative cases of interest are provided in Tables 1, 2, and
K+,+,Nf is the “+,+” analog of the “-,-” quantity 3, for the parameter vectors in Eq.(15), (16) and (17), re-
K−,−,Nf defined above). spectively.

= K(−, −)+W , where in general
• Case R: In this case K
• Case RRTT: K̄ = [K−,−,Nf K+,−,Nf K−,+,Nf K+,+,Nf ]T
K(−, −) is given by (10) while in the Born approximation
it is approximated by K B (−, −) in (7). Consider the sin-
3.2 Fisher Information Matrix and CRB
gle frequency case N f = 1. In this case the Fisher infor-
The corresponding Fisher information matrix I(ξ) is given mation matrix has at most rank 3 so that in the no a priori
by [3, eq.15.52] knowledge and “known support” cases the Fisher informa-
 tion matrix is singular and it is not possible to estimate all
∂CK
(ξ) −1 ∂CK
(ξ)
−1
I(ξ)i,j = tr C (ξ) C (ξ) the desired parameters from the data. However, the “known

K ∂ξi

K ∂ξj material” case which has only 3 unknown parameters ad-

 H
∂K
(ξ) −1 ∂ K(ξ)
mits a non-singular Fisher information matrix, so that the
+2 C (ξ) (18)
∂ξi

K ∂ξj CRB can be studied in that case. The rank is 3 since the
 Table 3. Rank of the 5 × 5 Fisher informa-
tion matrix under single-frequency (SF) and multi-
frequency (MF) conditions for parameter vector ξ =
 T
τ(r)1 , τ(r)2 , τ(i)1 , τ(i)2 , σ02 . Case A: τ1 = −0.5 + i0.5,
τ2 = −0.5+i0.5. Case B: τ1 = −0.5+i0.5, τ2 = −0.9+i0.3.
Table 1. Rank of the 7 × 7 Fisher informa-
tion matrix under single-frequency (SF) and multi- Cases A, SF B, SF A, MF B, MF
frequency (MF) conditions for parameter vector ξ = BR 3 3 5 5
 T
X1 , d, τ(r)1 , τ(r)2 , τ(i)1 , τ(i)2 , σ02 . Case A: τ1 = −0.5+ MR 3 3 5 5
i0.5, τ2 = −0.5 + i0.5. Case B: τ1 = −0.5 + i0.5, τ2 = BT 3 3 3 3
−0.9+i0.3. MT 3 3 5 5
BRT 5 5 5 5
Cases A, SF B, SF B, MF(2 freq.) B, MF (3 or more)
MRT 5 5 5 5
BR 3 3 5 7
BRRT 5 5 5 5
MR 3 3 5 7
MRRT 5 5 5 5
BT 3 3 3 3
BRRTT 5 5 5 5
MT 3 3 6 6
MRRTT 5 5 5 5
BRT 5 5 7 7
MRT 5 5 7 7
BRRT 6 7 7 7
MRRT 6 7 7 7 signal is complex-valued so that K(−, −) contains two in-
BRRTT 6 7 7 7 dependent data points and the noise is independent from
MRRTT 6 7 7 7 the signal which gives up to 2 scattering system features
plus 1 noise feature (σ 02 ) that can be estimated from the
data, hence the rank 3. In the multi-frequency case this re-
flective configuration achieves a full-rank, invertible Fisher
information matrix (meaning that all parameters can be es-
timated with finite error) with at least 3 different data fre-
quencies for the no a priori knowledge case and 2 different
frequencies for the “known support” case. The rank re-
mains 3 even for multiple frequencies in the “known mate-
rial” case. This was validated with several numerical exam-
ples during the course of this investigation (refer to Tables
1, 2, and 3).
• Case T: Consider first the single-frequency regime, in the
Table 2. Rank of the 3 × 3 Fisher information matrix un-
Born approximation. From (9), clearly the signal does not
der single-frequency (SF) and multi-frequency (MF) con-
= 0 = ∂K

 T depend on X 1 or d, i.e., ∂X ∂d , so that the general

∂K
ditions for parameter vector ξ = X1 , d, σ02 . Case A: 1

τ1 = −0.5+i0.5, τ2 = −0.5+i0.5. Case B: τ1 = −0.5+i0.5, expression (20) takes the following reduced form
τ2 = −0.9+i0.3. ⎡ ⎤
0. . . . . . . . . . . . 0
⎢0. . . . . . . . . . . . 0⎥
Cases A, SF B, SF A, MF B, MF ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢0 0 ∂K
H ∂K
. . . ∂K
H ∂K
0⎥
BR 3 3 3 3 1 2 ⎢⎢ ∂τ(i)2 ∂τ(r)1 ⎥
∂τ(r)1 ∂τ(r)1
⎥
MR 3 3 3 3 I[(ξ)]i,j = 4 δi,j δi,7 + 2⎢.. .. .. .. .. ..⎥ (22)
σ0 σ0 ⎢. . . . . .⎥
BT 1 1 1 1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢.. .. ∂K
..⎥.
⎣. .
∂K
. . . ∂K
∂K
H H
MT 2 2 2 2 ∂τ(r)1 ∂τ(i)2 ∂τ(i)2 ∂τ(i)2
⎦
BRT 3 3 3 3 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 0
MRT 3 3 3 3
BRRT 3 3 3 3 which means that, as outlined earlier, there is no informa-
MRRT 3 3 3 3 tion in the data about the target positions. As illustrated in
BRRTT 3 3 3 3 Tables 1 and 3, the rank is 3 in the no a priori knowledge
MRRTT 3 3 3 3 and “known support” cases. But in the “known material”
case the rank is 1. These results hold for both single and
multiple frequencies. The rank 1 is associated only to the
noise since there is no information in the T data about the
target positions. The information content associated to the
transmissive experiment is only on the scattering strengths,
and we will see that transmissive data in combination with
reflective data (e.g., in the RRT and RRTT cases to be stud- The rank for the no a priori knowledge case is now
ied in further detail next) does enhance the estimation per- at most 7, and this value is achieved if τ 1 = τ2 . However
formance pertinent to the scattering strengths. for τ1 = τ2 the rank was found to be 6 in the single fre-
In the more general multiple scattering regime ad- quency case (refer to Table 1). But for multiple frequency
dressed in (13) the data still does not depend on X 1 (hence one recovers the rank 7.
∂K(+,−)
∂X1 = 0) but unlike the Born approximation the data For the “known material” and “known support” cases
now depends on the target separation d, so that (in con- the Fisher information matrix is full rank, as is illustrated in
trast with (22)) the Fisher information has the more general Tables 2 and 3, hence all parameters can be estimated with
structure finite error. These results hold, for both single and multi-
⎡ ⎤ ple frequency conditions, and for both Born and multiple
0 ... ... ... 0
⎢.. ∂ K scattering models.
⎢.
H ∂K

H ∂ K
..⎥⎥ • Case RRTT: Since the signals K(+, −) and K(−, +)
⎢ ∂d ∂d . . . ∂τ(i)2 ∂d .⎥
∂K

Nf 2 ⎢ .. .. .. .. ..⎥ are identical, one expects that the additional data entry
I [(ξ)]i,j = 4 δi,j δi,7 + 2⎢
⎢ . . . .
⎥
.⎥ (23)
σ0 σ0 ⎢ will provide only marginal extra information about the
⎢.. ∂ K

H


H

..⎥
⎥ scattering parameters relative to case RRT. This will be
⎣. ∂K
... ∂K ∂K
.⎦
∂d ∂τ(i)2 ∂τ(i)2 ∂τ(i)2
illustrated in the computer simulations section. In this
0 ... ... ... 0
case the Fisher information matrix is of the general form
In this case the rank is 3 in the no a priori knowledge and Eq.(20) with L = 4N f and, in the Born approxima-
 
“known support” cases, and it is 2 in the “known material” tion model ∂ K
= ∂KB (−,−) 0 0 ∂KB (+,+) T and a
case for a single frequency. The latter is an enhancement ∂d ∂d ∂d
similar expression for X 1 . In the multiple scattering
due to multiple scattering, relative to the Born model where
=
the rank is only 1. model, there is greater dependence on d, and ∂X ∂K
 T 1

Note that for the three situations associated to the pa- ∂KB (−,−)
0 0 ∂KB (+,+)
. The Fisher information
rameter vector ξ, the Fisher information matrix is singu- ∂X1 ∂X1
matrix is full rank in this case (see Tables 1, 2, and 3), ex-
lar under the transmissive data set alone, for a single fre-
cept in the single frequency case when τ 1 = τ2 .
quency. In the multi-frequency case, the rank is at most
6 for the no a priori knowledge case and remains 2 in the
“known material” case. However, in the “known support” 4 Conclusion
case the rank is 5 (full rank), consequently finite CRB for
the five parameters (strengths and noise) can be computed This first paper of the present two-part paper developed
in this case. the Born approximation and multiple scattering scattering
• Case RT: The Fisher information matrix for this case has models in 1D space, as two different signals models for the
the general form Eq.(20) with L = 2N f . In the single- subsequent CRB analysis. The general Fisher information
frequency regime, under the Born approximation, ∂∂d
=
K matrix and CRB for different single- and multi-frequency
 T cases and sensing configurations were developed and dis-
∂KB (−,−)
0 and a similar expression for X 1 . Under
∂d cussed. The companion part II paper presents the respec-
multiple scattering, there is greater dependence on d but tive computer illustration along with further discussion.
 
∂K
= ∂K(−,−) 0 T .
∂X1 ∂X1
In this case the rank of the Fisher information ma- Acknowledgments
trix is 5 in the no a priori knowledge and “known sup-
port” cases, and 3 for the “known material” case for single This work was supported by the United States National Sci-
frequency case. Therefore in the case RT, and under the ence Foundation under grant number 0746310.
“known material” and “known support” cases the Fisher
information matrix is invertible (hence all the parameters E-mail address: emarengo@ece.neu.edu.
can be estimated with finite error). In the multi-frequency
case the rank of the Fisher information matrix increases for
the no a priori knowledge case, and the Fisher information Appendix A
matrix becomes invertible for at least two different data fre-
quencies. It is shown next that, under energy-conservative, elastic
• Case RRT: The Fisher information matrix has the gen- scattering, the scattering strengths τ m obey the condition
eral form Eq.(20) with L = 3N f . In the single-

= [Re(τm )]2 + Re(τm ) + [Im(τm )]2 = 0 (24)
frequency regime, under the Born approximation, ∂∂d K
 T
∂KB (−,−)
0 ∂KB∂d(+,+)
and a similar expression for where Re and Im denote real and imaginary part, respec-
∂d
tively. To arrive at this result, one notes that in the present
X1 . In the multiple scattering model there is greater de-
  scalar wave context, the quantity that is analogous to the
pendence on d but ∂ K
= ∂KB (−,−) 0 ∂KB (+,+) T .
∂X1 ∂X1 ∂X1 Poynting vector for electromagnetic waves is the energy
flux vector ([15], p. 717) which in the present 1D frame-
work can be expressed in terms of the field ψ(x) as
 
∗ ∂
F (x) = βIm ψ (x) ψ(x) (25)
∂x
where β is a positive constant. Consider a point target hav-
ing strength τ . Let exp(ikx) be the incident field, so that
the field to the left of the target is exp(ikx) + τ exp(−ikx)
while the field to the right of the target is (1 + τ ) exp(ikx).
Then the energy flux to the left is F (x < 0) = βk(1−|τ | 2 ),
while the energy flux to the right is F (x > 0) = βk[1 +
2Re(τ ) + |τ |2 ]. In elastic scattering the flux remains con-
tinuous at the scattering interface so that k(1 − |τ | 2 ) =
k[1 + 2Re(τ ) + |τ |2 ], which gives (24), as desired. Fur-
thermore, it can be shown that, consequently, the most gen-
eral scattering strength τ which gives rise to elastic (non-
dissipative) scattering is of the form
τ = − cos(θ) exp(iθ) (26)
where θ ∈ [−π/2, π/2].
References
[8] F. Simonetti, M. Fleming and E.A. Marengo, “An il-
lustration of the role of multiple scattering in sub-
wavelength imaging from far-field measurements”, J.
Opt. Soc. Am. A, Vol. 25, pp. 292-303, 2008.
[9] M. Cheney and R.J. Bonneau, “Imaging that exploits
multiple scattering from point scatterers”, Inverse
Problems, Vol. 20, pp. 1691-1711, 2004.
[10] N. Engheta, A. Alu, R.W. Ziolkowski, and A. Er-
entok, in Metamaterials: Physics and Engineering
Explorations, ed. N. Engheta and R.W. Ziolkowski,
IEEE/Wiley, 2006, chapter 2, pp. 43-85.
[11] K. Belkebir, P.C. Chaumet, and A. Sentenac, “In-
fluence of multiple scattering on three-dimensional
imaging with optical diffraction tomography”, J. Opt.
Soc. Am. A, Vol. 23, pp. 586-595, 2006.
[12] F. Simonetti, “Multiple scattering: The key to unravel
the subwavelength world from the far-field pattern of
a scattered wave”, Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 73, 036619-1
(2006).
[13] G. Arfken, Mathematical Methods for Physicists,
third ed., Academic Press, 1985.

[1] A. Brancaccio, G. Leone, and R. Pierri, “Information [14] C.A. Balanis, Advanced Engineering Electromagnet-
content of Born scattered fields: results in the cir- ics, Wiley, New York, 1989.
cular cylindrical case”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, Vol. 15, [15] M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed.,
pp. 1909-1917, 1998. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[2] R. Pierri, R. Persico, and R. Bernini, “Information
content of the Born field scattered by an embedded
slab: multifrequency, multiview, and multifrequency-
multiview cases”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, Vol. 16,
pp. 2392-2399, 1999.

[3] S. Kay, Fundamentals of Signal Processing: Estima-

tion Theory, Wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.

[4] M. Gustafsson and S. Nordebo, “Cramér-Rao lower

bounds for inverse scattering problems of multilayer
structures”, Inverse Problems, Vol. 22, pp. 1359-
1380, 2006.

[5] M. Shahram and P. Milanfar, “Imaging below the

diffraction limit: A statistical analysis”, IEEE Trans.
Image Processing, Vol. 13, pp. 677-689, 2004.

[6] G. Shi and A. Nehorai, “Cramer-Rao bound analy-

sis on multiple scattering in multistatic point-scatterer
estimation”, IEEE Trans. Signal Processsing, Vol. 55,
pp. 2840-2850, 2007.

[7] A. Sentenac, C.A. Guerin, P.C. Chaumet, F. Drsek,

H. Giovannini, N. Bertaux, and M. Holschneider, “In-
fluence of multiple scattering on the resolution of an
imaging system: A Cramer-Rao analysis”, Opt. Ex-
press, Vol. 15, pp. 1340-1347, 2007.