Abstract

A large family of one-way propagation equations used in the numerical modeling of wave phenomena is known as the parabolic wave equations (PWEs). They have their origin in the work of Leontovich and Fock [1], in which a model for the simulation of radio waves was proposed. Since then, a wide variety of PWEs have been developed to solve practical problems in seismics, acoustics, optics, and electrical engineering [2, 3, 4, 5] (sometimes referred to as beam propagation methods). In this approach, boundary value problems for the Helmholtz equation in a waveguide are replaced by Cauchy problems for PWEs, which are more convenient to handle numerically using marching solution techniques. Another reason for the success of this approach is the ability to cancel out certain oscillatory terms, thus removing a wavelength resolution limitation associated with the step size.

Currently, the standard approach to deriving PWEs is based on a formal factorization of the Helmholtz operator. Such factorization leads to evolutionary equations involving the square root of a differential operator [6], sometimes called pseudodifferential parabolic equations (PDPEs) (they also appear in the literature under a variety of names, e.g., very-wide-angle parabolic equations). Many modern wave propagation techniques are designed to solve PDPEs directly [4, 7, 8] (rather than first rewriting them, e.g., using some approximation of the square root operator). An important example is a powerful method called Split-Step Padé (SSP) [9, 10], which was a breakthrough in both accuracy and performance in underwater acoustics.

Despite the existence of a large number of works on PDPEs and their practical importance, to the best of our knowledge the questions of uniqueness, existence and well-posedness for such equations have not been addressed in the literature. In fact, most of the research on this topic does not even rigorously define the square root operator [5, 8, 7]. This letter aims to fill this gap. We provide a derivation of the most common PDPE form and rigorously define the square root operator in this equation. We then prove the uniqueness and existence of the PDPE solution using the semigroup property of the latter operator. Our discussion includes the piecewise constant dependence of the propagation medium on the range (i.e., on the evolutionary variable).

Consider the two-dimensional Helmholtz equation in Cartesian coordinates \( (x,y)\) ,

where \( u = u(x,y)\) is the unknown function and \( k = k(x,y)\) is a coefficient called medium wavenumber. In practice, \( k(x,y)\) is usually a complex quantity with both real and imaginary parts being positive and bounded both from above and from below (the imaginary part represents wave absorption, and it is usually much smaller than the real part).

Assuming that the coefficient dose not depend on \( x\) (this is a preferred direction of propagation called waveguide axis along which the medium parameters change very slowly [1, 3, 7]), we can factorize the operator in Eq. (1) to get

where the factors on the left-hand side correspond to leftward and rightward one-way propagation of the wave, respectively. Without loss of generality, hereafter we consider the latter case and rewrite the one-way counterpart of Eq. (2) as the PDPE

for \( x>0,\;-\infty<y<\infty\) , where \( A = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + k^2\) is a differential operator acting on the functions of the coordinate \( y\) representing a direction transverse to the waveguide axis. Eq. (1) arises in various physical settings. For example, in underwater acoustics, \( u(x,y)\) can describe the acoustic pressure field in a vertical plane [9, 3], where \( x\) denotes the range and \( y\) the depth (in this case, Eq. (1) is usually supplemented by boundary conditions, representing the sea surface and the bottom, e.g., \( u(x,0)=0\) and \( u(x,H)=0\) ). Eq. (1) on the entire half-space \( x\geq 0\) can be considered as a one-way counterpart of the horizontal refraction equation for one mode amplitude in the adiabatic approximation [3, 7].

The derivation of Eq. (1) is somewhat heuristic. However, once it is obtained it is desirable to establish that, for an initial condition \( u(0,y) = u_0(y)\) at \( x=0\) , the Cauchy problem in Eq. (3) is well-posed in an appropriate function space. Well-posedness means existence and uniqueness of the solution together with continuous dependence on the initial value (see e.g[11, Section II.6] for a more thorough discussion). For Eq. (3) well-posedness is equivalent to the property that \( \mathrm{i}\sqrt{A}\) generates a strongly continuous semigroup \( (T_x)_{x \geq 0}\) [11, Theorem II.6.7]. In this case, for each initial value \( u_0 = u_0(y)\) the unique solution of Eq. (3) is given by \( u(x,y) = T_x u_0(y)\) .

In this section we discuss criteria for the existence and uniqueness of square roots of unbounded operators on a Hilbert space. This will give a precise meaning to the expression \( \sqrt{A}\) in the PDPE (3). Let \( H\) be a complex Hilbert space. We use the convention that the inner product is anti-linear in the first argument and linear in the second. Let \( A\colon H \supseteq D(A) \to A\) be a closed linear operator. We denote the spectrum of \( A\) by \( \sigma(A)\) ; its complement \( \rho(A) := \mathbb{C} \setminus \sigma(A)\) is called the resolvent set of \( A\) . We will first discuss uniqueness and then existence. Even for complex numbers (rather than operators) the complex square root is only unique if one imposes an additional assumption on the argument of the root. Similarly, the spectral conditions in the following proposition ensure the uniqueness of a square root operator, provided that it exists.

Proposition 1 justifies the following definition.

The existence of such a square root is not guaranteed in general. In the following we discuss an operator theoretic result which ensures the existence of a square root under assumptions that are well-suited to the PDPE (3). We need the following concept: For a closed linear operator \( A\colon H \supseteq D(A) \to H\) on a complex Hilbert space \( H\) , the numerical range of \( A\) is defined to be the set

The set \( W(A)\) is always convex [15, Theorem V.3.1, p. 267]. The complement of its closure \( \overline{W(A)}\) has either one or two connected components, and if one of them intersects \( \rho(A)\) , then this entire connected component is contained in \( \rho(A)\) [15, Theorem V.3.2].

Note that the reference [15, Theorem V.3.35, p. 281], which we used in the proof, does not only give existence but also uniqueness of square roots – but only among all accretive operators. As a consequence of Proposition 2 one gets the following well-posedness result for differential equations.

The following example shows why the operator \( A = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + k^2\) in the PDPE (3) satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 2 and Corollary 1 if the real and imaginary parts of \( k\) are positive and bounded away from \( 0\) . In this case one can choose \( L = \partial^2/\partial y^2\) and \( m = k^2\) .

We provided a theoretical foundation for the PDPEs theory, which is widely used in the numerical simulation of wave dynamics [3, 4, 5, 8, 9]. First, we gave a rigorous definition of the square root operator appearing in such equations. Second, we established the well-posedness of the corresponding Cauchy problem. Due to the abstract nature of the proofs, they cover most typical Cauchy problem setups that arise in practice (e.g., it is sufficient that the initial data \( u_0\) is square integrable), although the dependence of the problem parameters on the range (i.e., on \( x\) ) is restricted to piecewise constant functions. In many physics and engineering problems, this is exactly the way the information about the medium is usually given [3]. On the other hand, it is desirable to establish the same results as above for more general types of range-dependent media (we plan to address this in future work).

We are grateful to Markus Haase and Christian Wyss for several helpful discussions.