Green’s functions and propagator matrices are both solutions of the wave equation, but whereas Green’s functions obey a causality condition in time (G = 0 for t < 0), propagator matrices obey a boundary condition in space. Marchenko-type focusing functions focus a wave field in space at zero time. We discuss the mutual relations between Green’s functions, propagator matrices and focusing functions, avoiding up-down decomposition and accounting for propagating and evanescent waves. We conclude with discussing a Marchenko-type Green’s function representation, which forms a basis for extending the Marchenko method to improve the imaging of steeply dipping flanks and to account for refracted waves. @en

Marchenko-type integrals typically relate so-called focusing functions and Green's functions via the reflection response measured on the open surface of a volume of interest. Originating from one dimensional inverse scattering theory, the extension to two and three dimensions set in motion various new developments regarding imaging in complex materials. This extension, however, is based on wavefield decomposition inside the volume and a truncated medium state, i.e. a version of the medium that is reflection-free underneath the focusing location, suggesting that evanescent, refracted and diving waves cannot be included in the representation. We elaborate on a new derivation for Marchenko-like integrals that (i) extends the concept of wavefield focusing by using a generalised homogeneous Green's function, (ii) is based on partial differential equations and thereby allows for additional insights and a new physical intuition for Marchenko equations, (iii) unifies wavefield focusing for open and closed boundary systems, (iv) does not require wavefield decomposition or a truncated medium state, thus including the full wavefield Green's function, (v) enables using forward modelling to obtain, e.g., Marchenko-type, time-compact focusing functions. We place a particular focus on the latter point, illustrating and investigating how to solve the underlying partial differential equations for various types of focusing functions. This paves the way for a deeper understanding of focusing functions as well as advanced full wavefield Marchenko schemes. While the derivations are generally presented for the 3D case, we show numerical examples in 1D.

@en

Many seismic imaging methods use wavefield extrapolation operators to redatum sources and receivers from the surface into the subsurface. We discuss wavefield extrapolation operators that account for internal multiple reflections, in particular propagator matrices, transfer matrices and Marchenko focusing functions. A propagator matrix is a square matrix that 'propagates' a wavefield vector from one depth level to another. It accounts for primaries and multiples and holds for propagating and evanescent waves. A Marchenko focusing function is a wavefield that focuses at a designated point in space at zero time. Marchenko focusing functions are useful for retrieving the wavefield inside a heterogeneous medium from the reflection response at its surface. By expressing these focusing functions in terms of the propagator matrix, the usual approximations (such as ignoring evanescent waves) are avoided. While a propagator matrix acts on the full wavefield vector, a transfer matrix (according to the definition used in this paper) 'transfers' a decomposed wavefield vector (containing downgoing and upgoing waves) from one depth level to another. It can be expressed in terms of decomposed Marchenko focusing functions. We present propagator matrices, transfer matrices and Marchenko focusing functions in a consistent way and discuss their mutual relations. In the main text we consider the acoustic situation and in the appendices we discuss other wave phenomena. Understanding these mutual connections may lead to new developments of Marchenko theory and its applications in wavefield focusing, Green's function retrieval and imaging.

@en

The Gel'fand-Levitan equation, the Gopinath-Sondhi equation, and the Marchenko equation are developed for one-dimensional inverse scattering problems. Recently, a version of the Marchenko equation based on wavefield decomposition has been introduced for focusing waves in multi dimensions. However, wavefield decomposition is a limitation when waves propagate horizontally at the focusing level. Here, the Marchenko equation for focusing without wavefield decomposition is derived, and by iteratively solving the Marchenko equation, the Green's function for an arbitrary location in the medium is retrieved from the scattered waves recorded on a closed receiver array and an estimate of the direct-wave without wavefield decomposition.@en

Marchenko methods are based on integral representations which express Green’s functions for virtual sources and/or receivers in the subsurface in terms of the reflection response at the surface. An underlying assumption is that inside the medium the wave field can be decomposed into downgoing and upgoing waves and that evanescent waves can be neglected. We present a new derivation of Green’s function representations which circumvents these assumptions, both for the acoustic and the elastodynamic situation. These representations form the basis for research into new Marchenko methods which have the potential to handle refracted and evanescent waves and to more accurately image steeply dipping reflectors.@en

Marchenko algorithms retrieve the Green’s function for arbitrary subsurface locations, and the retrieved Green’s function includes the primary and multiple reflected waves. The Marchenko algorithms require the estimate of the direct arrivals and the reflected waves; however, most previous Marchenko algorithms also require the up/down components of the Marchenko equation for the Green’s function retrieval. We use the Marmousi model to retrieve the Green’s function without using the up/-down components of the Marchenko equation and show that the retrieved Green’s function matches with the numerically modeled Green’s function. We also show that the refracted waves can be successfully produced independently from the acquisition geometry, i.e., singlesided or two-sided; however, the retrieval of refracted waves that arrive before the first primary waves is inconsistent with the requirement that the Green’s function vanishes before the direct wave. Even though we retrieve such refracted waves, they are caused by the injection of the direct wave into suciently detailed background velocity and density models instead of operations of the Marchenko algorithm on the recorded wavefields.@en

Marchenko redatuming, imaging, monitoring and multiple elimination methods are based on Green’s function representations, with the underlying assumption that the wave field in the subsurface can be decomposed into downgoing and upgoing waves and that evanescent waves can be neglected. In this paper we show that up/down decomposition in the subsurface is actually not needed for the derivation of these representations. This opens the way for research into new Marchenko methods which are not limited by the assumption that up/down decomposition is possible and which, in principle, can handle evanescent waves.@en