MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032643202 · doi:10.1109/comnet.2010.5699831

Closed form expression for the Cramér-Rao lower bound for the DOA estimates from spatially and temporally correlated narrowband signals considering noncircular sources

2010· article· en· W2032643202 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia Ben Hassen, Abdelaziz Samet, Faouzi Bellili, Sofiène Affes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrowbandCramér–Rao boundUpper and lower boundsExpression (computer science)CorrelationSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)PhysicsMerge (version control)MathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisOpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we derive for the first time an explicit expression for the stochastic Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB or CRB) of the DOA estimates from spatially and temporally correlated signals generated from noncircular sources. The new CRB is compared to those of circular temporally correlated and noncircular independent and identically distributed (iid) signals. It will be shown that the CRB obtained assuming both noncircular sources and temporally correlated signals is lower than the CRBs derived considering only one of these two assumptions. This illustrates the potential gain that both the noncircularity and the temporal correlation provide when considered together. It will also be proved that the difference between the three CRBs increases with the number of snapshots. However, as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) increases, the CRBs merge together and decrease linearly. Moreover, we notice that in low SNR values the temporal correlation is more informative about the unknown DOA parameters than the noncircularity. Finally, we show the dependence of the CRB on the noncircularity rate, the noncircularity phase separation and the DOA separation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207