Approximate maximum likelihood estimators for array processing in multiplicative noise environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of localizing a source by means of a sensor array when the received signal is corrupted by multiplicative noise. This scenario is encountered, for example, in communications, owing to the presence of local scatterers in the vicinity of the mobile or due to wavefronts that propagate through random inhomogeneous media. Since the exact maximum likelihood (ML) estimator is computationally intensive, two approximate solutions are proposed, originating from the analysis of the high and low signal to-noise ratio (SNR) cases, respectively. First, starting with the no additive noise case, a very simple approximate ML (AML/sub 1/) estimator is derived. The performance of the AML/sub 1/ estimator in the presence of additive noise is studied, and a theoretical expression for its asymptotic variance is derived. Its performance is shown to be close to the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) for moderate to high SNR. Next, the low SNR case is considered, and the corresponding AML/sub 2/ solution is derived. It is shown that the approximate ML criterion can be concentrated with respect to both the multiplicative and additive noise powers, leaving out a two-dimensional (2-D) minimization problem instead of a four-dimensional (4-D) problem required by the exact ML. Numerical results illustrate the performance of the estimators and confirm the validity of the theoretical analysis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".