MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CRLB Analysis for Matrix Pencil DoA Estimation in Hybrid Receivers Under Snapshot Constraints

2025· article· W7139051077 on OpenAlexaff
Mona Mostafa, Ramy H. Gohary, Amr El-Keyi, Yahia Ahmed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Cramér–Rao boundUpper and lower boundsExploitMatrix pencilSignal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we derive the Cramer-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for a newly developed approach for direction of arrival (DoA) estimation in hybrid analog/digital (HAD) receivers under snapshot constraints. In such cases, the inherent structure of the received signals can be exploited for reliable DoA estimation rather than using statistical averaging techniques. One approach to exploit this structure is the matrix pencil method (MPM). Unfortunately, existing HAD receivers tangle the signals at the output of the HAD receiver, hindering the direct use of the MPM. To address this difficulty, an approach developed in [1] enables the MPM to expose the structure of the output signal of the analog combiner by leveraging periodic, potentially unknown signals to disentangle the output of the HAD receiver. We derive the CRLB for this approach and show that it yields output signals resembling those of a fully-digital receiver, albeit with a snapshot penalty. Numerical simulations show that the developed approach achieves performance within a small gap of the corresponding CRLB and outperforms existing counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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